Are Pistol Caliber Carbines relevant these days?

Well, are they? The last thread along these lines had varying opinions back and forth concerning their place in the world of modern firearms, varying from cheap and efficient to being vastly outclassed by rifle caliber carbines, such as the 5.56. Is the pistol caliber carbine a dead end? Does it have a place in your world? Autoloaders? Leverguns?

I believe they have a place in the world. I like the ability to consolidate ammo down to one type for multiple guns and for some rounds such as the .357mag (or .44 mag) a longer barrel from the carbine provides much greater performance from the round. These are reasons why I got a 77/357 in addition to my GP100.

dmazur

March 18, 2013, 12:45 AM

Similar to above, except I got a 77/44 to go with my .44 Super Blackhawk.

allaroundhunter

March 18, 2013, 12:51 AM

I have also found that a 9mm AR recoils less than a 5.56mm AR...but not by much

For stepping a new shooter up from a .22, it is a good stepping stone, and it is just fun :D

As far as defensive use? I would prefer to have a carbine length 5.56x45mm AR than a PCC.

Inebriated

March 18, 2013, 01:00 AM

They are not useless, but there's always something that does "it" better.

The only advantage is ammo consolidation. Outside of that, it's hard to justify not going with a rifle cartridge.

I won't be giving my 9mm PCC up, though. :)

flipajig

March 18, 2013, 01:35 AM

There will always be a better tool for the job. But when you start talking ballistics a 240 grain cast SWC running 1600 fps is something to recon with. Same thing with a 357 mag a 158 grain SWC running at 1800 fps. You also take a 9 mm 125 grain RNFP at 1300 fps anything inside 100 yds I wouldn't want to mess with it.
Flip

MrCleanOK

March 18, 2013, 03:28 AM

In addition to ammo consolidation, some states have hunting laws that make pistol caliber carbines desireable. Indiana is one of them.

Auto426

March 18, 2013, 03:56 AM

I think they still have their place in the world. Some like the idea of having a long gun and handgun that share the same ammo and in some cases the same magazines. However an AR is about the same size and weight as most of the more modern PCC's but with much better ballistics and a much wider variety of parts of an accessories. For must uses, the AR makes more sense, but that doesn't make PCC's useless.

Deus Machina

March 18, 2013, 04:26 AM

They have their use, but short rifles have overtaken them for most.
I think the purposes would still be more obvious for an LEO or military standpoint.
If you want something with a suppressor on it, well, 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 or x51 are suddenly a lot less effective when you crank them down subsonic. Suddenly that 147gr 9mm is looking pretty good again.

Girodin

March 18, 2013, 04:46 AM

They have a place, that is clear by the fact that a lot of them are still made and sold. The question might be asked, what is their place.

For law enforcement/Military/defensive use sub guns have been on the decline for a reason. Small light carbines in rifle calibers have made significant inroads. PDW class weapons have taken over in some places where sub guns were used. However, Sig designed and produced the MPX with a belief there is still a market for a gun using pistol calibers.

If you want something with a suppressor on it, well, 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 or x51 are suddenly a lot less effective when you crank them down subsonic. Suddenly that 147gr 9mm is looking pretty good again.

For the 30 cal guns it is going to largely be an issue of bullet construction. Traditionally 30 cal bullets have not been designed to function at sub sonic velocities. However, with the popularity of the 300 BLK that is starting to change. As more bullets are designed to perform at subsonic speeds the 300 blk and others will really outshine the 147 grain 9x19s. Up until very recently I have argued for any use where terminal ballistics matters that the 9x19 is perhaps a better choice. That is starting to change.

In addition to ammo consolidation, some states have hunting laws that make pistol caliber carbines desireable. Indiana is one of them.

As mentioned they make sense for hunting where restrictions limit you. That said I'd take a 458 SOCOM in IN please. It meets the legal requirements there.

Some of them have a place in some forms of competition shooting such as cowboy action shooting.

Mostly I think PCC make sense as fun guns. That is why I have mine and why I am likely to buy any others in the future. I could use them for defensive use, or hunting, but I have rifles that better serve those roles.

PabloJ

March 18, 2013, 07:35 AM

Well, are they? The last thread along these lines had varying opinions back and forth concerning their place in the world of modern firearms, varying from cheap and efficient to being vastly outclassed by rifle caliber carbines, such as the 5.56. Is the pistol caliber carbine a dead end? Does it have a place in your world? Autoloaders? Leverguns?

The floor is yours.

*This thread is here and not there per mod preference.
A carabine chambered for handgun cartridge makes very little sense. I found nice semi-auto 7,62x35mm, but can't buy it because I can find no ammo for it. That brings tears to my eyes as with 200+gr slugs it could replace my shotgun for HD duties.

Jason_W

March 18, 2013, 08:49 AM

From a handloader's perspective, pistol cal carbines make a lot of sense. Straight-walled rounds are a lot faster and easier to load than bottleneck cases. Pistol rounds also typically eat a lot less powder than even the .223.

Additionally, for pistol cal leverguns, I can save even more money by casting my own bullets. I'm pretty sure that home cast bullets could also be employed in a semi-auto pistol cal carbine as long as what a simple blowback operated system. I could be wrong on that last part.

Hokkmike

March 18, 2013, 09:03 AM

Simply stated if it is what you like then it is relevant.

Deus Machina

March 18, 2013, 09:13 AM

or the 30 cal guns it is going to largely be an issue of bullet construction. Traditionally 30 cal bullets have not been designed to function at sub sonic velocities. However, with the popularity of the 300 BLK that is starting to change. As more bullets are designed to perform at subsonic speeds the 300 blk and others will really outshine the 147 grain 9x19s. Up until very recently I have argued for any use where terminal ballistics matters that the 9x19 is perhaps a better choice. That is starting to change.

Oh, yes. Given the opportunity and end purpose to work toward, .300 Blackout would be great. .458 built toward it, .50 if space isn't a concern. De-neck a .308 into a heavy 10mm or something, would make a heck of a great subsonic round. I'd buy one if it took common mags.

But for price and logistics, it would just be a heck of a lot easier and cheaper to retool to top some 9mm with a 147gr bullet or the like versus stocking an entire new cartridge.

I would still totally buy a carbine in 10mm or a blown-out .308, though.

MCgunner

March 18, 2013, 09:18 AM

Versatility is my love of the .357 magnum caliber carbine. To 100 yards it's a light .30-30 and, with the switch of a load and an elevation setting, it is a squirrel gun to 50 yards. I originally bought my Rossi 92 25 years ago because I was heavily in to reloading .38 and .357 and wanted a rifle to shoot them. I've since discovered how useful the gun can really be. It's sorta like the dual sport motorcycle. Your gold wing can't ride off road, but your KLR Kawasaki can and, while it's no gold wing, you can ride it to Alaska and back. It's not a CRF450F off road and it's not a gold wing on a trip, but it CAN do both.

http://i49.tinypic.com/11hwbif.jpg

MCgunner

March 18, 2013, 09:28 AM

BTW, I don't own nor do I want an AR. No zombies on my land and my .308 Remington M7 or my old Remington 722 short action in .257 roberts or my Savage in 7mm remington magnum is a better hunting rifle. Frankly, my Rossi 92 is preferable for its handling characteristic and I'd rather use .357 magnum on deer than .223 to 100 yards, more bullet and no need for some magic controlled expansion bullet. a heavy SWC cast in my shop does the trick. :D

From a handloader's perspective, pistol cal carbines make a lot of sense. Straight-walled rounds are a lot faster and easier to load than bottleneck cases. Pistol rounds also typically eat a lot less powder than even the .223.

Additionally, for pistol cal leverguns, I can save even more money by casting my own bullets. I'm pretty sure that home cast bullets could also be employed in a semi-auto pistol cal carbine as long as what a simple blowback operated system. I could be wrong on that last part.

True that, and I've been handloading for 50 years. Progressives can crank out the rounds and straight walled pistol cases work so much better when you can use a carbide sizer die, don't have to lube cases or trim cases. I cast a very accurate 105 SWC in .358" that I push to 900 fps with a very economical 2.3 grains of B'Eye, very economical plinker when it's hard to find .22LR on the shelves ANYwhere. I push a 165 grain gas checked Keith style SWC to nearly 1900 fps with Lil' Gun, pretty impressive and has impressed the heck out of a deer and a few hogs over the years. :D I think of it as a slightly downloaded .35 Remington. All this from the same rifle.

C0untZer0

March 18, 2013, 09:30 AM

You take something like the Underwood +P+ loading of the 147gr Gold Dot - that's going to put a 12" deep .75" diameter hole in someone.

I think that's better than 5.56 IMO.

The other advantage that IMO a 9mm or 45 ACP carbine has over a rifle cartridge is that the bullet is going to drop off substantially after 100 yards and a rifle bullet is going to keep zipping along - something I thought about when the NYPD unleased 84 bullets ata suspect and only hit him 14 times (and he lived)

So sometimes, in certain situations the PCC carbine is the better tool for the job.

mljdeckard

March 18, 2013, 09:36 AM

FOR ME, there is not a single job I would do with a pistol-caliber carbine that I wouldn't rather use a 5.56 for.

If you want to have one for fun, whatever, but anything I am actually trying to STOP, I don't want to use a pistol cartridge for it if I don't have to. Old lever guns in .357 and .44 are more overlapping into that range.

JustinJ

March 18, 2013, 09:43 AM

Less sound and flash is definitely advantageous for home defense.

For stealth military applications pistol caliber carbines have a huge advantage over 5.56 when suppressed.

MCgunner

March 18, 2013, 09:51 AM

If you want to have one for fun, whatever, but anything I am actually trying to STOP, I don't want to use a pistol cartridge for it if I don't have to. Old lever guns in .357 and .44 are more overlapping into that range.

If you want a deadly SERIOUS NEW lever gun in a pistol round, this one would even make sense in brown bear country. It even comes in a stainless version for rough climates. .454 Casull is a serious revolver round making around 1800 ft lbs out of a 7" barrel. It makes a lot more out of a rifle, rivals the .45-70, I mean, if it's POWER you want. .223 is a great prairie dog round, but I'd rather have a .220 swift. I sure wouldn't wanna PO a bear with one. :rolleyes:

http://www.rossiusa.com/product-details.cfm?id=159

http://www.rossiusa.com/images/imagesMain/R92-532011.jpg

Ramone

March 18, 2013, 10:01 AM

I tend to think of a PPC as a "Pistol Plus", rather than a "Rifle Minus"...

even an inexperienced shooter is going to be more accurate with a longer barrel/sight radius/gripping surface than with a pistol, and far less likely to shoot themselves in the foot (or me in the back!). If a situation should come to a struggle for control of the weapon, it's far easier to keep the muzzle away from one's self with the longer carbine.

A longer barrel both enhances the ballistics and reduces flash and blast (try subsonic 9mm out of a 16" barrel- you'll swear it was a squib). It works around confined spaces almost as well as a pistol.

For younger shooters, a centerfire caliber is more 'like a real rifle' than a .22LR (paraphrasing my 8 YO Niece), but still easily managed in terms of weight and recoil- and in 9MM, it's the next cheapest round to .22LR.

wlewisiii

March 18, 2013, 10:03 AM

They're fine as toys. I include all firearms for games like SASS in with the toys as well.

As tools? There is always something better.

CZ223

March 18, 2013, 10:15 AM

Those cowboys were onto something way back in the day. Having a handgun, or two, in the same caliber as your rifle makes a lot of sense. Commonality of ammo still makes sense to this day. As someone said earlier, it is even better if you have commonality of magazines. This is not a problem with lever rifles and revolvers of course. The lever actions and revolvers also have an advantage in power in that they are chambered for more powerful loads than most bottom feeding pistols and rifles. I would feel well armed with a rifle/pistol combo in 45 Colt, 44 Mag 357 mag and even perhaps 32 Mag. A lot of you forgot about that last one I will bet. Another advantage to all of the above combinations is that most, if not all of them will digest a second type of ammo. The 44 mag will also eat 44 specials, the 357 mag will digest 38 specials and, the 32 mag will feed 32 long. Some 45 colts can also manage with 45 Schofield. Even in this time of ammo shortages I regularly run across all the above cartridges, though some of them are quite expensive.

As for semi-autos with detachable magazines, the biggest problem I see with them is the selection of guns available. I would love to have a carbine that would take the same magazines as my Glocks but I can't force myself to buy a Kel-Tec. The just right carbine got my attention but to say that the reviews are mixed is putting it mildly. I always had a problem with the Mech-tech conversion because I would have to dedicate one of my pistol frames but they are a good unit. There are some good rifles out there like the Ruger PC9/40 and the Berretta but since I have never owned any of their hand guns I have held off for something better to come along. The Biggest problem that I have with all of the guns that I just mentioned is that none of them are chambered in 10mm or 357 Sig. These are the two calibers that I consider most viable as a rifle round. HK did or does make a rifle in 10 mm but I doubt that I will ever be able to afford one, especially now.

With all that said, what do I think their role is or could be? Personally, because of where I live and the situations that I am like to encounter, I feel that they could serve a dual role as a Personal defense weapon and for hunting. I also think they would be well suited for law enforcement in a close quarters environment. The biggest issue for me is still the cartridges that they are chambered in. A 10mm carbine would equal or come close to equaling the power of a 44 mag carbine and a carbine in 357 Sig would pretty much duplicate the ballistics of some 357 mag rounds out of a carbine. That would make them very viable for hunting and for reaching out to further distances than a 45, 40 or 9mm carbine.

jim243

March 18, 2013, 10:26 AM

Best way to put it is "Depending on what you are doing with it".

For hunting, yes there are better tools. For pratice and just general shooting for fun, no it is the best tool, or at least a very good tool.

As a reloader I can produce 4 to 5 times the number of pistol rounds than I can rifle rounds, less case preperation, less work, less time, less powder. Does that relate to more time shooting, YES.

It is an excelent tool for sharpening your marksman skills with. Would I use one for hunting, within 100 yards, yes, I would have no problem with that. Would I do it on a regular basis, no I would stick to my 35 Remington or 270 Winchester. For rabbit, no there wouldn't be enough of it to eat. (messy, messy)

Since I am not a war with any country or live in a zombie zone and have what I consider better tools for personal and home defense, it becomes a non-issue as to it's use for that.

They are fun to shoot, more challenging that a 22 LR and have their place in the overall scheme of things.

Jim

MCgunner

March 18, 2013, 11:28 AM

For rabbit, no there wouldn't be enough of it to eat. (messy, messy)

I've shot more'n one rabbit with a .38 wadcutter. My 105 SWC at 900 fps MV does a pretty good job of playing reloadable rimfire. :D It don't make a mess, but it does the job better than a .22 solid. I'd think a FMJ 9 or even a FMJ .45 wouldn't be that destructive, though I've not shot a rabbit with a 9 or .45acp.

Since I am not a war with any country or live in a zombie zone and have what I consider better tools for personal and home defense, it becomes a non-issue as to it's use for that.

+1. Around the house or on the street, I carry a handgun. Fits my pocket better than a rifle. Long gun for the house, I keep a shotgun handy in the bedroom. Inside 25 yards, buckshot is good 'nuf. I can't kill a man at 300 with it, sure nuf, but I have a feeling that if I did, I might be in some deep do do with the law. At self defense ranges, I'd rather have a shotgun and my handgun is always with me. All this talk about killing people on this thread, I wonder how many of you have killed a man with your AR, not a gubment issue M4 or M16, YOUR AR?

And, PS, zombies are a myth. Even sasquatch has a better chance of being real. There are some swat types that need an M4, usually issued to them. They go around busing up penny ante poker games now days, I understand. At the risk of being political, I think there's too much swat going on now days and now I'm going to have to watch the sky for drones? The gubment wants ya, I guess you're dead.

ball3006

March 18, 2013, 11:35 AM

I have some simply because they are FUN to go shooting with........same with all my guns....chris3

mavracer

March 18, 2013, 12:18 PM

I'd think a FMJ 9 or even a FMJ .45 wouldn't be that destructive, though I've not shot a rabbit with a 9 or .45acp.
I have and they're not all that bad.
I don't find the 9mm or 45acp carbines all that useful for most applications there are better choices hence I got rid of mine. Magnum lever guns are another story IMHO they'll handle any job a 9mm or 45 would and delve into larger game. 44 mag and 45 Colt will knock on the door of the ballistics of the black powder rounds that nearly wiped out the buffalo. For the military suppressed applications the 300 Blackout is a vastly superior round as it effectively doubles the range suppressed and can go supersonic with a mag change and reach out 3X as far as a 9mm would.

Shawn Dodson

March 18, 2013, 12:38 PM

A pistol caliber carbine of the same caliber as your pistol, and which accepts that same magazines as your pistol, makes for a great Emergency Preparedness Rifle (EPR) in the aftermath of a major natural disaster or during civil disorder.

Perhaps the best advantage of a pistol caliber carbine is terminal performance against automotive windshield glass and sheetmetal. Ammunition such as Gold Dot, HST, etc., are designed to perform well against automobiles as a result of the FBI's law enforcement ammunition criteria.

To achieve the same level of performance against automobiles with 5.56mm you're going to spend $20-$30 for a box of 20 rounds of premium ammo. For that same amount you can purchase a 50 round box of premium pistol ammo (that you can use in both your pistol AND your carbine).

As a general rule, 5.56mm does not perform well against automotive windshield glass unless you purchase expensive premium ammo (or if you handload - expensive premium bullets). As counter intuitive as it seems, even M855 "green tip" does not perform well against windshield glass (standard 55gr M193 actually outperforms M855 "green tip", albeit slightly, against automotive windshield glass).

In my experience pistol caliber carbines have more felt recoil and muzzle jump than 5.56mm.

BCRider

March 18, 2013, 01:32 PM

A point that I brought up in the other thread of yours should likely be here instead.

Having heard AR's shooting 5.56/.223 at indoor ranges and how shockingly loud they are even WITH ear protection I strongly suspect that using and shooting an AR in a house during an attack would be so loud that it would cause pain and some temporary disorientation to the shooter. Of course it would do the same to the attacker if by some chance the gun missed. But still these things are HELLISHLY LOUD at the best of times and INSANELY LOUD when used in an indoor setting. A semi auto PCC in one of the popular handgun calibers would be much less loud. Oh sure, the shooter's ears would still be ringing after an event. But it wouldn't smack them upside the head like the sound of an AR in 5.56.

Of course the same can be said for shooting a .357 or .44Mag indoors without ear protection as would likely be the case during a home breakin or invasion event.

On the other hand a PCC in 9, .40 or .45 would tend to be LESS noisy than even the handguns shooting the same round. So it's quite possible that given all the effects going on what with adrenaline and noise that a PCC might just be a better choice FOR THIS APPLICATION than an AR.

Again I know that the common belief is that the adrenaline manages to prevent folks even noticing the noise of the shots. But at some point it's not just a sound but an actual pressure blow to the ears which will affect balance and thinking for a brief moment. What pressure level generates such a blow? I wonder if any research has been done on it. I certainly don't know for sure. However I do know that even with hearing protectors the sound of an AR going off that close to me is more powerful than any handgun I've shot. Even the .460S&W didn't make me flinch from the shock to my ears like the sharp crack of an AR.

Does this mean that I think the AR isn't a good CQB rifle? Not at all. When used by trained military and police that use it a lot and have come up with methods that deal with the indoor noise shock issues I'm sure it's a fine system. But for us reg'lar folks that might need to deal with a possible night intruder once or perhaps twice in a lifetime? Perhaps a less "sound shocky" sort of option would be a better way to go.

PorkChopsMmm

March 18, 2013, 02:39 PM

I just bought a PCC, well a 357 lever gun, to go with my 357 revolver. I don't have dreams of doing barrel rolls and getting tactical with it but it is perfect for my needs -- shorter range critter getting and home defense carbine. I've had/have AR's, both 5.56 and 308, and other rifles and none of them can do what this what can do -- put a hurt on something within 100 yards and not destroy my ear drums if I have to shoot something late at night or from the tractor.

It also weighs less and carries easier than any other carbine I can think of. So yes, a 5.56 AR definitely has more power, more rounds, and can take more accessories, but in my case that AR would be inside the house and not out in the field with me because it isn't as easy to carry and is just too loud.

egg250

March 18, 2013, 02:43 PM

Yes, pistol caliber carbines serve their purpose and fill a niche. But, even within this category of firearms, there are varying strengths and weaknesses. There is a big difference between a 9x19 and .44 magnum.

Don357

March 18, 2013, 02:51 PM

It really depends on the situation, or should I say application. For a home defence weapon, they are ideal. Less chance of a thru and thru shot, or a wall penetration than a 'rifle' round, yet more powerful than a handgun in the same caliber. Ammo is generally less expensive. And in a hunting capacity, they served the cowboys well for many years, and in my area, a 100 yd shot is stretching it. So an appropriate pistol caliber will sufffice. The issue of ammo compatibility has already been discussed. Are they a rifle? No, but they DO have a place. Would I want a pistol caliber AR? No, but a lever gun or a carbine such as a Marlin Camp Carbine, M1 Carbine, or the Ruger .44mag carbine would be great.

Jason_W

March 18, 2013, 03:19 PM

It's also worth noting that at common in-home distances, a .357 or .44 mag fired from a carbine will deliver as much or more energy to a target than a .223/5.56.

mljdeckard

March 18, 2013, 03:23 PM

Don, you do realize tha 5.56 is less likely to overpenetrate walls or humans?

Jason_W

March 18, 2013, 03:33 PM

Penetration is more a function of bullet composition and sectional density velocity or caliber.

I can see a use for large pistol calibers in a carbine. I have a 9mm carbine that is a lot of fun to shoot. A 357 mag would be awesome. I have shot the Kel Tec 5.56 pistol. I was not impressed. It wasn't accurate like a rifle and it wasn't small enough to be useful as a pistol. If someone made a fold up stock for the kel tec it would be useful and a NFA headache.

Dr.Rob

March 18, 2013, 04:49 PM

It depends on "the job" doesn't it?

While a cowboy lever action is at home in a scabbard on ranch duty, it's not terribly suited to SWAT ops.

Though at one time lawmen all over the country used them--as that was about all there was.

I really like my 'pistol caliber' lever gun as a plinker and as a powerful short range big game rifle, it's not as flexible for taking long range shots or engaging multiple targets, (without a LOT of training) as say an M4 style carbine or 'short rifle'.

As an HD platform? Pistol caliber carbines are pretty handy in general.

chris in va

March 18, 2013, 05:07 PM

I want a PCC simply because I can cast my own bullets for it, unlike the AR that requires a jacketed round that may not be available.

FireInCairo

March 18, 2013, 05:15 PM

I think certain pistol chambered carbines are a great alternative to an AR for home defense. When I was looking for an AR platform during the beginning of the panic, I strongly considered some carbines that take Glock magazines as they would essentially offer all I was looking for in an AR (high capacity magazines, lightweight, easy indoor handling, and plenty enough power to defend a home if need be). All of which would come at a much more reasonable price even in the midst of a panic spree.

A Keltec Sub2000 in 9mm or .40 caliber that takes Glock high-capacity magazines could be had for less than half the money AR's were going for a couple months ago. It's a great option.

Marlin Camp Carbine, anyone?

Texan Scott

March 18, 2013, 06:02 PM

For home defense, a shotgun is likely the best option; for combat/ militia/ law enforcement etc, an AR or AK; for deer, a 243; for hogs, a 308... every application has a different "best" tool.

For those of us who don't own, can't afford, or won't carry all of them at once, a 357 lever gun is light, handy, and can be made to fill any of those roles inside 100 yds or so. It's not necessarily the "best" choice for anything, but it works.

Of course, the commonality of caliber and ease of reloading are very valid points as well.

When it all goes bad, and civil law and social order go out the window, a small house outside of town, a well-stocked freezer chest, two revolvers, a carbine, and a big green ammo can full of 357 sounds like a good plan for a month or three.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go buy a 90 day supply of TP.

Bohemus

March 18, 2013, 06:07 PM

I countries where there is no "SBR" bulls-hit its rather funn gun to shoot. Its much better idea than .223 fireball maker with 7,5" barrell
You can use it at ranges where rifles are forbide, ammo is the same as for your pistol.
Iam saving up for CZ Scorpion EVO3.

wally

March 18, 2013, 06:17 PM

With current ammo prices they make a lot of sense for 100 yard and under rifle shooting. I agree they make even more sense when done as an SBR and a suppressor.

Vern Humphrey

March 18, 2013, 06:24 PM

The first repeating rifles, the Spencer and Henry, were essentially glorified pistols. For about 20 years there were no repeaters that would handle full-power rifle cartridges. So you had a choice -- you could have a full power rifle, but it had to be a single shot, or you could have a repeater chambered for a pistol-power cartridge.

Nowadays, however, you can have almnost any cartridge in a repeater. And while a lot of people like carbines in .357 or .44 Mag, they won't do anything a .30-30 can't do.

qwert65

March 18, 2013, 07:12 PM

To me there are a couple valid reasons for a PCC

1) for those who need a HD long arm and can not handle the recoil of a shotgun or can afford an AR

2) for suppressed shooting

3)I'm prob forgetting something

That said, I don't have one and prob never will I use a shotgun for HD and a 30-30 or my .308 for anything else

kimbershot

March 18, 2013, 07:33 PM

i have a vector uzi carbine in 45acp. it's fairly accurate, packs a punch within a reasonable range, it's cheap to shoot--i cast my own and the operative word is--i shoot it (less than 5 cents/round). :neener:

also have a stash of primers, lead, brass and powder that will keep me going for a long, long time. there are always lookers when i step up to the line to pop off a few and i don't even think about breaking the bank. just waiting on my sbr tax stamp.. :D

Vern Humphrey

March 18, 2013, 08:45 PM

1) for those who need a HD long arm and can not handle the recoil of a shotgun or can afford an AR
Go to a smaller gauge shotgun.
2) for suppressed shooting
In carbine-length barrels (16" is the legal minimum) most pistol cartridges are super-sonic.

BCRider

March 18, 2013, 08:53 PM

.....Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go buy a 90 day supply of TP.

Depending on the situation that TP could well be as important as a good ammo supply.... :D

I must admit to being a trifle more thoughtful on this sort of topic since I only just "discovered" "The Walking Dead" on Netflix. Watching 3 episodes a night really puts you into that whole EOTWAWKI frame of mind..... :D

Girodin

March 18, 2013, 09:26 PM

A point that I brought up in the other thread of yours should likely be here instead.

Having heard AR's shooting 5.56/.223 at indoor ranges and how shockingly loud they are even WITH ear protection I strongly suspect that using and shooting an AR in a house during an attack would be so loud that it would cause pain and some temporary disorientation to the shooter. Of course it would do the same to the attacker if by some chance the gun missed. But still these things are HELLISHLY LOUD at the best of times and INSANELY LOUD when used in an indoor setting. A semi auto PCC in one of the popular handgun calibers would be much less loud. Oh sure, the shooter's ears would still be ringing after an event. But it wouldn't smack them upside the head like the sound of an AR in 5.56.

Of course the same can be said for shooting a .357 or .44Mag indoors without ear protection as would likely be the case during a home breakin or invasion event.

On the other hand a PCC in 9, .40 or .45 would tend to be LESS noisy than even the handguns shooting the same round. So it's quite possible that given all the effects going on what with adrenaline and noise that a PCC might just be a better choice FOR THIS APPLICATION than an AR.

Again I know that the common belief is that the adrenaline manages to prevent folks even noticing the noise of the shots. But at some point it's not just a sound but an actual pressure blow to the ears which will affect balance and thinking for a brief moment. What pressure level generates such a blow? I wonder if any research has been done on it. I certainly don't know for sure. However I do know that even with hearing protectors the sound of an AR going off that close to me is more powerful than any handgun I've shot. Even the .460S&W didn't make me flinch from the shock to my ears like the sharp crack of an AR.

Does this mean that I think the AR isn't a good CQB rifle? Not at all. When used by trained military and police that use it a lot and have come up with methods that deal with the indoor noise shock issues I'm sure it's a fine system. But for us reg'lar folks that might need to deal with a possible night intruder once or perhaps twice in a lifetime? Perhaps a less "sound shocky" sort of option would be a better way to go.

http://www.policemag.com/_Images/news/Micro-suppressor-1-Web-2.jpg

A Keltec Sub2000 in 9mm or .40 caliber that takes Glock high-capacity magazines could be had for less than half the money AR's were going for a couple months ago. It's a great option.

I have owned a few different sub 2000s and shot used even more. I really like the gun. that said they are not something I would choose to take the place of a quality AR. They should, and normally have cost probably a 3rd of what a decent AR costs. There is a reason for that. While the Sub2K is a neat little gun, the build quality is pretty poor. Of the three I owned all had some sort of issues. Most were simply really poor fit and finish and things I could sort myself. One didn't fold/unfold and lock properly. My experience was they were reliable with anything other than aluminum cased ammo (which Kel tec tells you up front). However, the sights are fragile and pretty poor overall. The trigger is pretty bad. Reports of them being used in carbine courses have included a lot of reports of failures and breakage, which does not surprise me based on their construction. It probably would be OK for HD as the actual task of that is unlikely to be super demanding. It is more the training and use to become real proficient with one that I wonder how it would fare. All in all even if I wanted a PCC for a primary defensive weapon I think I'd look at something other than a sub2K.

Girodin

March 18, 2013, 09:34 PM

In carbine-length barrels (16" is the legal minimum) most pistol cartridges are super-sonic.

Maybe in some states, anywhere else in the US for an extra $200 (which is nothing over the service life of the gun) I can get shorter barrel. Moreover if one is into shooting sub sonics then one likely has bought a suppressor and is already into the NFA game. If one bought the gun for shooting subsonics and bought a suppressor one also either bought a gun suited to do so or buys and more likely loads their ammo for that purpose.

And while a lot of people like carbines in .357 or .44 Mag, they won't do anything a .30-30 can't do.

Hold more rounds. Be cheaper and easier to reload for. Use the same ammo as my revolver. Those are a few things they do that my 30/30 can't.

backbencher

March 18, 2013, 10:45 PM

The PCC is a legal animal. Often it is a stocked pistol w/ the minimum length bbl that meets legal requirements, which is 16". It certainly improves the ballistics of the pistol round, and if semi-auto, either has magazine compatibility or greatly increases the magazine capacity. If we could stock our handguns properly, I submit the PCC would largely disappear.

On the same topic, I submit one good thing has come from the expired AWB - the Kel-Tec Sub 2000. A PCC without a folding stock - so it has a folding bbl, and folds to 16". Handy when you can't legally carry a handgun about. But again, a legal animal - if we were able to always carry a handgun about, we wouldn't need the Sub 2000.

SuperNaut

March 18, 2013, 10:57 PM

With the shortage of .223 we are currently experiencing my .45 Storm has been seeing a lot of action. The right tool is the one that you can actually use.

Girodin

March 18, 2013, 11:25 PM

A PCC without a folding stock - so it has a folding bbl, and folds to 16". Handy when you can't legally carry a handgun about. But again, a legal animal - if we were able to always carry a handgun about, we wouldn't need the Sub 2000.

In what scenario can you not carry a handgun but you can carry a folded up sub 2K? I'm trying to think of one but struggling. I know I personally have never picked up my sub 2k because I couldn't take my pistol where I was going.

Warp

March 18, 2013, 11:29 PM

Yes, they are relevant. They have a niche. They can do things that nothing else can.

But they only fill a niche, they aren't going to be an extremely popular thing that every gun enthusiast has an example of.

In what scenario can you not carry a handgun but you can carry a folded up sub 2K? I'm trying to think of one but struggling. I know I personally have never picked up my sub 2k because I couldn't take my pistol where I was going.

Currently this would be true for either of my parents. They have not yet applied for/received their handgun carry licenses, but in their state long gun carry is legal, open or concealed, without a license. Just one example. There are multiple states with laws like this.

Girodin

March 19, 2013, 01:19 AM

Interesting, thanks. Undoubtedly living in a state with very permissive firearms laws makes it harder for me to see a time it would be done.

I'd still question the utility though. Would buying a sub2k would be a better solution than simply getting a permit. Admittedly it might be something that could be done in a shorter time frame than getting a permit if some immediate threat cropped up. However, it would be far from an ideal or particularly useful concealed carry option for lots of situations. The time it takes to get the gun out, fold it open, and slap the charging handle MP5 style to send the bolt home is well below my personal threshold for deploying a concealed carry weapon and getting a first round hit (if you are going to open carry then there is nothing of particular not to recommend the Sub2k save perhaps that it is light and relatively small but so are some other guns). I've played around with this a fair amount with some friends that also have sub 2ks. My experience was that deployment varied from slower than I'd like to absurdly slow depending on how the gun was being carried. Now I suppose it is better than nothing in a pinch. However, before I went out and bought one for that purpose, devised an acceptable concealed carry rig, practiced deploying the gun, etc, I would likely simply get a carry permit.

I do like the sub 2k for when I want to discreetly bring something more than a pistol along with me. Although since getting into SBRs the Sub2k doesn't hold as big a monopoly on that role. Of course the kel tec is MUCH less expensive than any of those SBRs and easier to acquire, but it is also a much less robust/well made gun too. When folded it is a good 9-10" shorter than any other non SBR rifle I'm aware of.

Yes, [pistol caliber carbines] are relevant. They have a niche. They can do things that nothing else can.

Not trying to be difficult, but again simply trying to see and think past my own shortsightedness. What, in terms of function, are some things they do that a rifle simply can't. I can't think of much, and not much that is particularly meaningful that I can do with a PCC that I can't do (and often do better) with a gun chambered in a rifle caliber. About all I'm coming up with is share ammo/mags with my pistol. Something might be said for cost of shooting as well.

Kiln

March 19, 2013, 01:41 AM

Semi automatic pistol caliber carbines still have a role in the defensive world. They're effective for defense and pest control. If you pick a widely used caliber then the ammunition choice can be customized to the specific situation you might need it for.

VVelox

March 19, 2013, 04:15 AM

I don't think it is something that has been pressed any where near as far as it can go. What is needed is a PCC in a M1 Carbine formfactor with a matching pistol chambered in 10mm Auto. Something like that would give you a very serious PDW and and makes sharing ammo between two firearms easy.

It is also nice for places like Chicago where there are occasional random denials for trying to register a semi-auto. Also given supply line annoyances, it is nicer to stock as few as different types of cartridges as possible more so than usual.

Mp7

March 19, 2013, 04:54 AM

Give me a TT33 and a PCC like the Ppsh ... and modernize both,
i`d be a happy camper. And wont feel undergunned.

mavracer

March 19, 2013, 09:41 AM

They have a niche. They can do things that nothing else can.
Besides shooting the same slightly less expensive and far less effective ammo as a pistol I'm hard pressed to think of a shot a 9mm or 45 carbine could make that my blackout can't do.
On the other hand coming up with shortcomings of 9mm and 45 carbines is easy.

PorkChopsMmm

March 19, 2013, 09:48 AM

mavracer -- I love the blackout round and have plans to build an AR in that caliber someday. But I think you are missing that some PCC's, not all, are smaller than regular rifles and carry easier. For example, my Rossi 92 lever carbine in 357 does not have a magazine hanging down from the balancing point of the receiver and is very easy to carry. I know, I have other ARs, and they are just harder to carry in the hand, more bulky, etc. because of having an external magazine and other things going-on on the receiver.

Sure, the external mag and larger round provide more firepower in both potency and quantity but that may not always be needed.

I built an AR for carrying around on my land. I figured it was light, short, and would make a great ranch rifle. I quickly started looking for something else when trying to press it into service. I don't need what the 223 or 300 BO can offer at the ranges I would be shooting (and my ears wouldn't want to take it) and I want to be able to carry the rifle easily. The 92 lever action gives me all of that in a handle package that feels like carrying a small stick -- a small stick that can shoot cat whisper loads or hot 357 loads that start touching 30-30 territory.

The above is specific for lever action PCC's. If we are talking Beretta Storms or the like than I think an AR is much more comparable, basically the same size, and both have an external mag, so it is a wash. In those cases, barring mag compatibility or caliber consolidation, I don't see much of a use for them.

CA Raider

March 19, 2013, 09:54 AM

what about the venerable old grease gun from WW2. The M3? i think there were some improved versions made after the war. you never seem to see very much about them. but from the little I've seen it wasn't a bad weapon. 45acp I think.

CA R

Warp

March 19, 2013, 10:13 AM

Besides shooting the same - less expensive - ammo as a pistol

That's a pretty big advantage to a person who already has that less expensive pistol ammo. Especially if the carbine even takes the same magazines as the pistol. And especially when you carry both with you. Only one magazine with one round for both...a most efficient situation, that is.

MCgunner

March 19, 2013, 11:46 AM

Besides shooting the same slightly less expensive and far less effective ammo as a pistol I'm hard pressed to think of a shot a 9mm or 45 carbine could make that my blackout can't do.

Mmm, ammo availablity in BFE? Just a thought. It's something all the .30-06 fanatics always seem to think is important. Being a handloader, I never really cared.

Vern Humphrey

March 19, 2013, 12:06 PM

what about the venerable old grease gun from WW2. The M3? i think there were some improved versions made after the war. you never seem to see very much about them. but from the little I've seen it wasn't a bad weapon. 45acp I think.
You're talking about the M3A1. They were standard issue to tankers, since they were short enough to be conveniently stowed -- a good example of adopting a piece of equipment whose sole virtue is that it's convenient when you're not using it.;)
When I was an adviser, I kept an M3A1 (obtained by trade) in my jeep. A couple of times, I shot it. I was not impressed.

mavracer

March 19, 2013, 12:30 PM

But I think you are missing that some PCC's, not all, are smaller than regular rifles and carry easier. For example, my Rossi 92 lever carbine in 357 does not have a magazine hanging down from the balancing point of the receiver and is very easy to carry.
I think you missed my first post. Magnum levers are very useful little guns, however just to play devils advocate I would point out that '94 Winchester and Marlin 336 actions have all the same handling atributes as a '92 does and chambered in 35 remington would be capable of shooting any bullet your 92 can. 10gr of unique with a 158gr cast LRN makes a nice light small game load in a 35.

You can load rifle rounds down to handgun velocities, doesn't work the other way around so well.

Warp I agreed with expense and common rounds, can you come with any thing else useful.
BTW a carbine chambered in 22 long rifle would be even less expensive though.

Vern Humphrey

March 19, 2013, 12:50 PM

I think you missed my first post. Magnum levers are very useful little guns, however just to play devils advocate I would point out that '94 Winchester and Marlin 336 actions have all the same handling atributes as a '92 does and chambered in 35 remington would be capable of shooting any bullet your 92 can. 10gr of unique with a 158gr cast LRN makes a nice light small game load in a 35.

You can load rifle rounds down to handgun velocities, doesn't work the other way around so well.
And that's the point. The typical rifle-cartridge carbine is just as light and handy as the typical pistol-cartridge carbine, and the rifle cartridge can do everything the pistol cartridge can do, but not vice-versa.

PorkChopsMmm

March 19, 2013, 12:55 PM

I would argue with the Rossi 92 357 and Marlin 336 35 Remington comparison. The 92 weight is listed as a little over 5 lbs, the 336 weighs 7 lbs. That's a near 30% difference in weight. I agree the 35 Remington can offer much more punch than 357 -- but it is a rifle cartridge and is not compatible with a revolver, for example. There are reloading benefits but I think the weight and cartridge of the 35 Remington take it out of the PCC comparison.

With my needs I had the option of going 336 in 35 Remington and didn't want to because it is a large rifle that doesn't balance as well at the receiver, weighs more, and the cartridge would have too much recoil and muzzle blast if the barrel was cut down to 16".

Warp

March 19, 2013, 12:56 PM

Warp I agreed with expense and common rounds, can you come with any thing else useful.
Those are exceptionally useful things, and you neglected to mention ammunition compatibility, potential magazine compatibility, and magazine size. ;)

BCRider

March 19, 2013, 01:18 PM

Well it seems to be coming down to "it depends on...".

It depends on the user's intended variety of possible targets.

It depends on how far out you want to extend your ability to deal with varmints or targets.

It depends on how big a deal it is to be able to directly share ammo and/or magazines with handguns.

It depends on how much noise is tolerable in the intended places of use.

It depends on how much cost for ammo you can tolerate when shooting the gun for fun vs defense or varmint control.

Did I miss any?

All in all it's pretty clear that some of you see little or no need for PCC's and would rather have a compact rifle in a proper rifle caliber. Others think that they are just the right tool due to a variety of the "it depends on" factors leaning the other way for their situations.

jmorris

March 19, 2013, 01:21 PM

I have a bunch of them from an 1866 to a suppressed AR 15. Cheap and fun to shoot.

Better tool? For what?

Warp

March 19, 2013, 01:21 PM

I can't think of a single "which firearm" question or topic that doesn't come down to "it depends".

The problem, as with most things, is that some people believe everybody else should come to the same conclusions and make the same decisions and buy the same items as themselves, and there is simply no other legitimate option or alternative.

BCRider

March 19, 2013, 01:38 PM

The problem, as with most things, is that some people believe everybody else should come to the same conclusions and make the same decisions and buy the same items as themselves, and there is simply no other legitimate option or alternative.

Very true... very true...

mavracer

March 19, 2013, 02:14 PM

Those are exceptionally useful things
Unless sombody is shooting at you from 300 yards away then the fact that your handgun and longgun take the same compact magazine with enemic 9mm ammo would be exceptionally irrelevant.
The 92 weight is listed as a little over 5 lbs, the 336 weighs 7 lbs.
according to Puma the 357 '92 is 6.6 lbs

Warp

March 19, 2013, 02:21 PM

Unless sombody is shooting at you from 300 yards away then the fact that your handgun and longgun take the same compact magazine with enemic 9mm ammo would be exceptionally irrelevant.
\

Obviously no one single firearm can do every single thing and handle every cocneivable situation in an optimal manner.

I thought that was implied and understood.

Vern Humphrey

March 19, 2013, 02:25 PM

Obviously no one single firearm can do every single thing and handle every cocneivable situation in an optimal manner.
True.

But note that people who have to be prepared to handle every conceivable situation at any time -- armies, for example -- tend to come down on the side of a rifle as the best choice.

Warp

March 19, 2013, 02:36 PM

True.

But note that people who have to be prepared to handle every conceivable situation at any time -- armies, for example -- tend to come down on the side of a rifle as the best choice.

Under this logic nobody should ever choose a shotgun for, well, anything.

And nobody should choose a handgun for, well, anything.

Or a .22lr.

Or a bolt action.

Or a lever action.

Or, or, or....you get the idea?

The fact is that different people in different circumstances have different uses for different firearms, and what works best for them in a given situation may not be what works best for somebody else.

And most people aren't going to be overly concerned with how effective their personal defensive firearm is at 300 yards. The odds of that ever being an issue are slim to none, anyway.

PorkChopsMmm

March 19, 2013, 02:54 PM

That's got to be a longer barrel one -- maybe the 20" or 24" octagon one. I have seen the 16" one (which is what I have) listed as little as 4.8lbs and up to just over 5lbs. I went with the high end just in case.

I agree with what others have said -- its about a tool fitting a role. A PCC, specifically the 357 lever gun, fit my role better than others but may not be for everyone. IF SBRs were legal in my state of Michigan I might have tried to go with something in suppressed 300 BLK but as it stands now I can use off the shelf subsonic 38 special so I am good to go in that regard.

Vern Humphrey

March 19, 2013, 02:58 PM

Under this logic nobody should ever choose a shotgun for, well, anything.
No. Under this logic, no one should choose a specialized and limited weapon for all around use.

Warp

March 19, 2013, 02:59 PM

No. Under this logic, no one should choose a specialized and limited weapon for all around use.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the topic was "which firearm is the best for all around use".

Well, are they? The last thread along these lines had varying opinions back and forth concerning their place in the world of modern firearms, varying from cheap and efficient to being vastly outclassed by rifle caliber carbines, such as the 5.56. Is the pistol caliber carbine a dead end? Does it have a place in your world? Autoloaders? Leverguns?

The floor is yours.

*This thread is here and not there per mod preference.

PorkChopsMmm

March 19, 2013, 03:00 PM

This is starting to sound like a SHTF fantasy instead of a discussion on the relevance of short carbines shooting pistol caliber rounds.

mljdeckard

March 19, 2013, 04:49 PM

I concur with Girodin in post #54.

I cannot think of a single situation in which I would drop an M-4gery for a PCC.

jim243

March 19, 2013, 05:02 PM

I cannot think of a single situation in which I would drop an M-4gery for a PCC.

Let's see, 223 is it really almost $1.00 per round and 9mm still $0.35 a round??

Jim

mavracer

March 19, 2013, 05:13 PM

"That's got to be a longer barrel one -- maybe the 20" or 24" octagon one. I have seen the 16" one (which is what I have) listed as little as 4.8lbs and up to just over 5lbs. I went with the high end just in case."
Sorry I went back and read that wasn't taken from puma's websight that was the actual weight for a 20" round barrel 357.
You really can't go off Manufacture's weights anyway Puma list all the 16" guns at the same weight but I'll bet you lunch my 16" 44 mag is lighter (empty) than your 357.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize the topic was "which firearm is the best for all around use".
take another look at the second poll option in the OP. Is there something better than a PCC for every use, most certainly.

BCRider

March 19, 2013, 05:21 PM

I cannot think of a single situation in which I would drop an M-4gery for a PCC.

In addition to the cost for range fun what about that noise issue I brought up earlier?

I invite you to shoot off a couple of .223's from an M4'gery in an indoor range without hearing protection. Your ears may tell you that there IS a place for a PCC shooting handgun ammo out of a longer barrel which results in a quieter report. .....Well, they will once they stop ringing and possibly bleeding.

I'm not trying to say in any manner that a PCC is better or even the same as a M4/AR in 5.56. But there are going to be times, such as cost for plinking and possibly home defense, where the cheaper and far more quiet PCC will not only do the job but do it quite well and perhaps even in a more user friendly manner for some circumstances.

Anyhow this is all coming down to about the same as trying to discuss religion or politics or hockey teams. We should probably all just leave it as it sits and go off to other things.

Warp

March 19, 2013, 05:34 PM

It seems to me we have a lot of people posters who have never, do not, and will never own something chambered in .22lr. Very weird results are arising from this question

MCgunner

March 19, 2013, 05:46 PM

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the topic was "which firearm is the best for all around use".

If you're Charles Whitman, I guess you'd rather have a scoped high caliber rifle. If you're still hunting in dense woods, perhaps a .44 mag lever gun would be a better choice. If you're hunting dense woods, a .357 lever gun would do that well for deer, hogs, or with a light .38 load, you could hunt squirrel in the same woods, or rabbits. I've heard some carrying a .30-06 squib loaded with a 00 buck pellet and a dash of bullseye for this. I guess it CAN be done. Not sure how accurate that would be.

Me, I will not be shooting in a self defense scenario from 300 yards. I don't desire jail time. I'm not in the military and long range sniping for civilians is called murder.

All that said, I own several high caliber hunting rifles and only one PCC. I like it, it ain't for sale, it's fun, and I wanted it. That's all it took, WANT. Is that not "relevance"? It does come in handy, though, so light and easy to carry in the woods.

xtarheel

March 19, 2013, 05:50 PM

If we were to get back to the original question.

I like my .38-40 Winchester SRC carbine and Blackhawk convertable in 10mm and .38.40 for fun. My Marlin .357 and S&W 66 for fun and...other

mljdeckard

March 19, 2013, 06:01 PM

No. I can practice with Wolf, and I handload. Cost isn't a deciding factor to me. And I have shot plenty of all of the above, indoors, and outdoors, with hearing protection and without. I am fortunate to still have better than average hearing for the things I have put my ears through.

Vern Humphrey

March 19, 2013, 06:05 PM

It seems to me we have a lot of people posters who have never, do not, and will never own something chambered in .22lr. Very weird results are arising from this question
Why would you say that?

Warp

March 19, 2013, 06:18 PM

Some day I'll have a sweet lever gun in either .38/.357

And if there is ever a 9mm carbine that takes Glock magazines, that I really like, I'll probably have it too.

nipprdog

March 19, 2013, 07:46 PM

And if there is ever a 9mm carbine that takes Glock magazines, that I really like, I'll probably have it too.

Just Right Carbine;

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/nippr/web/DII_4995w.jpg

Warp

March 19, 2013, 07:49 PM

What I REALLY want is a reliable and affordable AR platform 9mm that will take Glock mags.

But if the market/choices dont' change much I"ll probably end up with a 9mm AR and just buy more magazines that go with it

*With AR controls, including charging handle/safety/mag release and all that

MCgunner

March 19, 2013, 07:49 PM

Speaking of .22s, come to think of it, my .22LR rifles and my 8 or 10 handguns in the caliber are pistol calibers, right? :D I also have a Remington 597 magnum and a NAA Black Widow in .22 magnum. Does that count? :D

mavracer

March 19, 2013, 10:24 PM

Speaking of .22s, come to think of it, my .22LR rifles and my 8 or 10 handguns in the caliber are pistol calibers, right?
22LR as in 22 long rifle:banghead:
Of course by the same token and just to muddy the water further while very popular in pistols 38-40 and 44-40 were developed as rifle rounds.
But then are we sure the Blackout is actually a rifle round as it is basically the same as the 300 whisper which was developed by JD Jones in a T/C Contender.

jmorris

March 19, 2013, 10:50 PM

I'll flip the argument and say I also have rifle caliber pistols that are useful.

Warp

March 19, 2013, 11:09 PM

I'll flip the argument and say I also have rifle caliber pistols that are useful.

They are a good choice for those who practice at an indoor range. Less hammering of the ears and the backstops.

I shoot my .45 Colt at an outdoor suburban range. With my light loads, it's quiet enough that I can practice early in the morning without disturbing the neighbors.

All my best,
Dirty Bob

Bobson

March 20, 2013, 12:45 AM

Is an MP5 considered a carbine?

If it is, make my vote 'yes.' Otherwise, no.

jim243

March 20, 2013, 01:07 AM

Is an MP5 considered a carbine?

The original H&K MP5 in 9mm is not, if however you are talking about one with a 16 inch barrel and a overall length of 26 inches, it could be considered a carbine, but I am not sure they are allowed to be imported because the barrels can be swaped with a shorter one. The H&K MP5 SD and A5 in 22 LR are considered by H&K as rifles they use a false sound suppresser shroud over the barrel to give the rifle a better appearance and are carbine length.

Jim

mavracer

March 20, 2013, 09:46 AM

The original H&K MP5 in 9mm is not, if however you are talking about one with a 16 inch barrel and a overall length of 26 inches, it could be considered a carbine
That depends on weather you use the book definition or the generally accepted one.
While it would be generally acceptable to call any long gun with a 16" barrel a carbine. To actually be a carbing there would have to be a longer rifle version to shorten to carbine length.
IE a 20" 1894 winchester is a carbine because the rifle versions had longer 24-26" barrels while a 20" AR15 is a rifle because that is the original rifle length.

meanmrmustard

March 21, 2013, 09:23 PM

They are not useless, but there's always something that does "it" better.

The only advantage is ammo consolidation. Outside of that, it's hard to justify not going with a rifle cartridge.

I won't be giving my 9mm PCC up, though. :)
Over penetration?

Better for use with a can?

SBRed doesn't really lose much?

Less recoil? Etc, etc, etc...

Girodin

March 22, 2013, 03:50 AM

Over penetration? The advantage is actually going to go to rifle cartridges loaded with properly selected bullets.

Better for use with a can? "Better" in what sense? I think 147 9x19s are better in the sense of cost vis-a-vis say 300 BLK. Its cheaper to have subsonic ammo, particularly sub sonic ammo with decent terminal ballistics. Performance wise, however, 300 BLK is going to be better than pistol calibers in many respects. The same is true of other rifle calibers as well. I think one needs to be much more nuanced in this argument, rather than simply assert one is better for use with a can than another.

SBRed doesn't really lose much? I'm not sure this is a per se advantage of pistol calibers. Just as some pistol calibers gain or lose more when barrel length is added or subtracted the same is true of rifle rounds. I can think of a number of rifle rounds that don't suffer greatly when you SBR them. Based on my chrono testing (and cross referencing it against what others are reporting) 7.62x39 loses very little dropping from a 16" gun to my 11" one, and even on a 7" barrel it is still pretty useful. More over the absolute performance of many rifle rounds is going to eclipse pistol rounds at a given barrel length. My 7" AK is going to push 123 grain bullets to about 2000 FPS. A 7" 9x19 carbine is likely not going to 9x19 +p 124 grain bullets to even 1400 FPS. And rifle bullets tend to have much better BCs and tend to be more capable in terms of accuracy IME.

Less recoil? Etc, etc, etc... Again I feel like this going to depend on the exact calibers and platforms in question. I need to go shoot some of my pistol carbines against some of the rifle caliber ones and measure split times (which to me is often the real issue with recoil/muzzle rise) I'm not sure what the etc, etc, etc, actually is

meanmrmustard

March 22, 2013, 05:00 AM

Over penetration? The advantage is actually going to go to rifle cartridges loaded with properly selected bullets.

Better for use with a can? "Better" in what sense? I think 147 9x19s are better in the sense of cost vis-a-vis say 300 BLK. Its cheaper to have subsonic ammo, particularly sub sonic ammo with decent terminal ballistics. Performance wise, however, 300 BLK is going to be better than pistol calibers in many respects. The same is true of other rifle calibers as well. I think one needs to be much more nuanced in this argument, rather than simply assert one is better for use with a can than another.

SBRed doesn't really lose much? I'm not sure this is a per se advantage of pistol calibers. Just as some pistol calibers gain or lose more when barrel length is added or subtracted the same is true of rifle rounds. I can think of a number of rifle rounds that don't suffer greatly when you SBR them. Based on my chrono testing (and cross referencing it against what others are reporting) 7.62x39 loses very little dropping from a 16" gun to my 11" one, and even on a 7" barrel it is still pretty useful. More over the absolute performance of many rifle rounds is going to eclipse pistol rounds at a given barrel length. My 7" AK is going to push 123 grain bullets to about 2000 FPS. A 7" 9x19 carbine is likely not going to 9x19 +p 124 grain bullets to even 1400 FPS. And rifle bullets tend to have much better BCs and tend to be more capable in terms of accuracy IME.

Less recoil? Etc, etc, etc... Again I feel like this going to depend on the exact calibers and platforms in question. I need to go shoot some of my pistol carbines against some of the rifle caliber ones and measure split times (which to me is often the real issue with recoil/muzzle rise) I'm not sure what the etc, etc, etc, actually is
I guess it depends on what you are using either platform for.

Although, why do i heavy 9s NEED to go 1400 fps? Aren't SLOW, heavy bullets big over penetrators? If I'm not suppressed, 1400 sounds dandy. Otherwise, a x39 going 600fps is breaking the sound barrier as well, and that crack is still giving you away.

What accuracy issue would I have at ranges where a PCC is still viable? Beyond that distance, I've brought the wrong gun anyway. An SBR PCC is nominally going to be longer than a pistol in terms of barrel length, either gaining something or nothing, so I fail to see your point there. With rifle rounds, something's usually lost.

As for use with suppression, pistol rounds, as my experience allows, are still sound dampened more than rifle. Maybe due to less "boom" from less powder? I believe the sectional area of a .45 ACP is going to trump a severely downloaded rifle cartridge when a silencer is in play. Bigger hole, but slow. This is where the rifle round may shine, due to penetration of walls or undesirable targets.

I've no PCC, nor had any, that recoiled more than a rifle powered gun. Call it subjective, fine, but a pistol cartridge simply doesn't generate the recoil energy of a rifle cartridge. The "etc" is to put not too fine a point on the period ending my post. I feel this sufficient enough reason for myself to own a PCC, as they have some advantages. I don't really see the detractors you've stated as plausible. You'll have to compare your two carbines as to recoil. I'm betting that PCC is softer.

YMMV

mavracer

March 22, 2013, 08:12 AM

Although, why do i heavy 9s NEED to go 1400 fps? Aren't SLOW, heavy bullets big over penetrators? If I'm not suppressed, 1400 sounds dandy. Otherwise, a x39 going 600fps is breaking the sound barrier as well, and that crack is still giving you away.
Of course with a suppressed rifle round you could be much further away, subsonic or not.
What accuracy issue would I have at ranges where a PCC is still viable?
Less accuracy is not or never will be an advantage.
An SBR PCC is nominally going to be longer than a pistol in terms of barrel length, either gaining something or nothing, so I fail to see your point there. With rifle rounds, something's usually lost.
You're really being obtuse to ignore the point.
sure a SBR is going to have more velocity than a pistol and less than a rifle. The point you're missing is 2400-400>1200+200 all day every day.

Shawn Dodson

March 22, 2013, 11:20 AM

What I REALLY want is a reliable and affordable AR platform 9mm that will take Glock mags.

Better for use with a can? "Better" in what sense? I think 147 9x19s are better in the sense of cost vis-a-vis say 300 BLK. Its cheaper to have subsonic ammo, particularly sub sonic ammo with decent terminal ballistics. Performance wise, however, 300 BLK is going to be better than pistol calibers in many respects. The same is true of other rifle calibers as well. I think one needs to be much more nuanced in this argument, rather than simply assert one is better for use with a can than another.

The 300 black out is relatively new and there may still be kinks to work out regarding guns intended for use with sub and supersonic ammo. Also, i'm not so sure i'd give the edge to 300blk when we're talking subsonic performance. Pistol caliber rounds are designed to operate at subsonic speeds so expansion is still reliable.

whetrock

March 22, 2013, 12:23 PM

A good example could be the El Tigre, in spain. That 92 copy was used extensively by Police, Prison Gaurds, and even was used to a certain capacity in the Spanish Civil war. The reason I'm so fascinated by the El Tigre is that this little carbine was used well in the 20th century. I know that even stateside, there were Law enforcement that carried 30-30 lever guns until pretty recently, but the fact that the El Tigre was chambered for the 44-40 piques my interest. I feel like a pistol caliber carbine, if kept short and lightweight, can help fill a certain niche, that was left by guns like the M1 Carbine. I know the 30 Carbine wasn't intended as a pistol cartridge, but is more akin to a pistol than a rifle round according to many. Slow moving lead, still wreaks havoc at close range.

Girodin

March 22, 2013, 04:01 PM

Otherwise, a x39 going 600fps is breaking the sound barrier as well, and that crack is still giving you away.

No it is not. The speed of sound is roughly 1100 FPS. So something going 600 FPS is not breaking the sound barrier.

What accuracy issue would I have at ranges where a PCC is still viable?

It depends on the task at hand. For combat effective hits inside 200 yards (and really the pistol guns are more of 100 yard and in affairs unless you know your holds well) probably none. That, however, doesn't mean rifle bullets do not tend to offer greater accuracy potential than pistol bullets. As you said advantages and disadvantages depend on use. The other issue is that a subsonic 220 gr 30 cal bullet with its vastly superior BC effectively extends the range for the rifle bullets.

As for use with suppression, pistol rounds, as my experience allows, are still sound dampened more than rifle. Maybe due to less "boom" from less powder? I believe the sectional area of a .45 ACP is going to trump a severely downloaded rifle cartridge when a silencer is in play. Bigger hole, but slow. This is where the rifle round may shine, due to penetration of walls or undesirable targets.

There are two separate and distinct issues, shooting suppressed with supersonic ammunition and shooting suppressed with subsonic ammunition. The validity of what you assert depends on which we are discussing. Also the issues are more nuanced than your statement suggests. They can turn on the rifle or pistol round in question (not all rifle rounds or pistol rounds suppress the same) and even the weapon and suppressor in question. To put it simply, some suppressors work better than others and some guns suppress better than others. I'm not sure I'm following whether you are trying to talk about suppressed subsonic or supersonic in your statement above. Like anything else when it comes to suppressed shooting there is a spectrum for factors like, noise and terminal ballistics. Where the sweet spot is depends largely on intended use.

An SBR PCC is nominally going to be longer than a pistol in terms of barrel length, either gaining something or nothing, so I fail to see your point there. With rifle rounds, something's usually lost.

As mentioned by another poster, this is really talking around my point and the bottom line. Rifles are more powerful than pistols. A 300 BLK at its best with an 8" barrel is more powerful than 9x19 at its best with an 8" barrel. A 5.56 may lose a lot of velocity if shot from a 10" gun but it still is vastly more power than a .45 ACP shot from a 10" gun. As you go to subsonics the discussion really shifts to bullet construction as you can shoot a 230 grain .45 ACP sub sonic and a 220 grain 300 Blk sub sonic and the energy is nearly the same (although the rifle bullet and its better BC will retain more velocity the longer the distance).

Beyond that distance, I've brought the wrong gun anyway.

Many subsonic rifle rounds will offer more practical range than the common pistol calibers.

You'll have to compare your two carbines as to recoil. I'm betting that PCC is softer.

It's not so much felt recoil, in as much as I don't really think a number of rifle or pistol caliber rifles I have offer any real noticeable felt recoil. It is more a matter or muzzle rise and time back to target affecting split times. I admit at the get go this may not be 1:1 comparison as some of the pistol caliber rifles I have, have triggers that aren't that great. I'm sure if we compare an FAL or PTR 91 it has more recoil and rise than a 9x19 gun. A 50 A&E AR has more than a 5.56 AR. As between say a 5.56 and 9x19 I think a lot will vary with the particular guns. I think the rise and recoil is unlike to be more limiting than most peoples skill in most cases anyways. In sum, year at the extremes a rifle round will recoil more, it also offers vastly more energy. In the middle ground any difference is probably pretty negligible and may be secondary to other factors.

At the end of the day if it cost the exact same to shoot 300 Blk and 9x19 (optimized for what the task at hand is) and availability was the same there wouldn't be much reason to use a 9x19. However, for most of us, cost is a factor, as is availability.

Also, i'm not so sure i'd give the edge to 300blk when we're talking subsonic performance. Pistol caliber rounds are designed to operate at subsonic speeds so expansion is still reliable.

I used to fervently argue that 300 BLK was not better than 9x19 for subsonics if terminal ballistics mattered. I argued this basically for the reasons you state. However, there are now bullets designed to perform at sub sonic speeds so that argument has lost a lot of validity.

Old judge creek

March 22, 2013, 06:49 PM

Cheese, Louise......... so much for the OP.

I've been out of the loop for several weeks and this thread simply mam-mazes me!

That said, in ~1979 I bought the first Winchester "Trapper" model carbine available since GCA 1938. On my first deer hunt with it, I was forever sold on the utility and handiness of Trapper length (16 1/4" barrel) long guns.

Not long after that SASS came into being and the possibility of "combos" again became an option. I found that for so many, many outdoor excursions (camping, prospecting, exploring, fishing excursions, canoe tripping, etc - occasions where shooting was NOT the primary purpose of the adventure) the old Cowboys had it right: commonality between sidearm and longarm is indeed a virtue.

Indeed, I discovered just how deadly efficient such a combo can be out to 175-225 yards.

... not to mention that (regardless if it is "only a matter of time" - and it is if we don't stand together NOW) these wheel gun / lever action carbine combos are the farthest down of the list of what the antis have zeroed in on.

Now I'm 70 years old and BTDT a time or two and I gotta tellya IMO: You dang bet'cha the combos have a viable raison d'Ítre in the here and now.

... bu-ut whatta I know

Inebriated

March 23, 2013, 01:08 AM

Over penetration?

Better for use with a can?

SBRed doesn't really lose much?

Less recoil? Etc, etc, etc...

Girodin pretty much summed up what my response woulda been.

I guess I'll just wait outside...

Jason_W

March 23, 2013, 07:03 AM

I've never owned a semi-auto PCC, but I have owned revolver caliber leverguns. If I had a large piece of land and a few hundred dollars left over for one gun, it would definitely be a lever in .357, .44, or .45. They are far more versatile all around guns than AR-type firearms, especially from the perspective of someone who handloads and casts his own bullets.

Girodin

March 23, 2013, 05:41 PM

They are far more versatile all around guns than AR-type firearms, especially from the perspective of someone who handloads and casts his own bullets.

Are you saying that with the proviso that I can't change uppers?

Even if we assume we are only putting one upper on an AR type I'm not sure that I would agree that a .357 lever gun is more versitile than an AR in any number of cartridges. I say that as someone who hand loads and owns a .357 mag lever gun (I even have a very large chunk of land where I can shoot it.)

You stated versitale, not economical and as such I'm speaking only of versatility at this point.

What can a lever gun in any of the cartridges you mentioned do that a 300 BLK AR carbine wont? I can think of a few things. Share ammo with a sidearm, be used in CAS (the AR instantly evens things out though by being competitive in 3 gun where a lever gun wouldn't be). Beyond that what? And cartridges like the 300 BLK, 6.8, 6.5 have the numbers ballistically speaking of any of the cartridges you mention. Furthermore, as much as I like lever guns the AR with its modularlity and ocean of aftermarket parts makes it pretty dang versatile. You can have quality QD mounts and go from Irons, to magnified optics, to RDS, quickly and easily. Heck you can even have all three on the gun at once. If we listed every plausible possible task for a carbine to do, do you really think there are many that an objective person would chose a 357 lever gun over an AR in 6.8 6.5 or 300 BLK for, let alone name more than a few very niche tasks the AR couldn't do?

For an all round gun I'd actually argue a 6.8 or 300 Blk AR would blow a 357 (or any of the others mentioned) lever gun out of the water.

Hunting: Some states such as IN might limit you (of course a 458 socom is still on the table for the AR), but with no artificial limits a I'd take the 6.8 or 300 BLK. More range, more energy, and more accuracy.

Defensive use: I like lever guns and a lever gun can still be a fairly practical defensive tool. That said, this task is unquestionably the providence of an AR.

Gun games: There are some such as CAS that you would need the lever gun. Overall an AR is more useful in a broader range of gun games. In any of them if you really want to compete you are likely looking at getting equipment that will fall outside the purview of a general use gun.

Fun/recreational shooting/plinking etc: One would have to run the math for a hand loader as to cost. That said IMO and experience they are all guns and can do this task and be pretty good at it. Shooting at distance the lever guns will fall on their face a bit where as a number of AR calibers are good for punching paper out a few hundred yards.

Ability to mount suppressors, various optics, etc: AR hands down

Some times I'm sort sighted, so I would be interested in hearing what the tasks there are that a pistol caliber lever gun will do that no AR type will. I just don't see how a lever gun is more versatile.

Jason_W

March 23, 2013, 08:13 PM

Magnum Revovler carbines are variable power.

In one sitting I can handload a a magnum revolver round that out of a carbine will take small game without instantly converting it to flying burger or load a medium to big game round. Can anyone really do the same with any pointy round in a semi-auto?

I can also scavenge scrap lead and cast bullets I can seat over 4-5 grains of powder for dirt cheap fun shooting. Most semi-autos I know of will gum up as bullet lube burns.

mavracer

March 23, 2013, 08:52 PM

300 BLK and 357 mag from 16" are very close ballisticly the BLK will have a decided range advantage due to BC and there's no reason you can't shoot cast bullets from a AR.

Girodin

March 23, 2013, 09:22 PM

In one sitting I can handload a a magnum revolver round that out of a carbine will take small game without instantly converting it to flying burger or load a medium to big game round. Can anyone really do the same with any pointy round in a semi-auto?

Do you really think you can't? With something like 300 BLK you certainly can load and tune it the same way by varying loads and choosing bullets. As a hand loader myself I don't think there is much to that argument in favor of 357 lever gun versatility. Moreover, I can drop a .22LR upper on my AR and shoot a small game etc. (FWIW, I can also put a 458 Socom upper on it and shoot a grizzly bear, or a 50 BMG one and shoot something a mile away)

I can also scavenge scrap lead and cast bullets I can seat over 4-5 grains of powder for dirt cheap fun shooting. Most semi-autos I know of will gum up as bullet lube burns.

I've seen a lot of lead bullets go through a 300 BLK. I also know of a number of other people shooting lead through it. There are even molds made specifically for bullets to be used in the 300 BLK. So on this one I am again going to say there is no advantage to the pistol calibered lever guns. Furthermore if one is going to go to the expense of buying casting equipment and the time of involved in doing it, then I think that its not out of bounds to talk about some uppers that can be bought for a few hundred dollars. One would be a .22LR for really cheap fun shooting (and certainly added versatility). Some may say its not as fun as shooting cast loads but that is a matter of opinion and as stated that option still exists with a 300 BLK AR. I am again going to say I just don't see any real argument that a lever gun is more versatile.

PS. I also know of a lot of people shooting cast bullets through the big bore ARs in 458 Socom and 50 Beowulf.

Also I know Tony Rumore of Tromix fame shoots bullets he casts out of his 50 A&E AR upper. So yeah I think there is plenty of evidence that lead can be shot out of AR type guns.

barnbwt

March 23, 2013, 11:18 PM

Pistol caliber carbines are way easier for homebuilders to make. Compare a heavy bolt to a complicated system of locking lugs and delicate timing. Also lots cheaper--Suomi kits are already back below 100$ these days, and far easier to throw together than any rifle caliber carbine. Compare that with an AR or AK parts kit--never mind the receiver itself.

TCB

Jason_W

March 24, 2013, 08:25 AM

You can get into casting for way less than than the cost of an AR upper.

I'm not saying anyone should buy a P-Cal levergun over an AR. just that people dismiss PCCs way too quickly when they are in fact very versatile guns, not to mention far less expensive in most cases.

meanmrmustard

March 24, 2013, 08:31 AM

You know, I'm not sure why I posted 600fps being supersonic. You're right, Girodin. I'm actual a bit perturbed that I typed that.

After reading your later posts, I do happen to agree with you about rifle cartridges better BC, I'm just not sold on there not being a use for PCCs. I'll even add that, as much as I'm not a huge fan of the round, 5.7 is a good example of trying to get the best of both worlds.

TommyD45

March 24, 2013, 01:04 PM

"Are pistol caliber carbines relevant these days?"

Let me start by saying that I'm not a believer in the Zombie Apocalypse or that I will be engaging in pitched battles with hordes of paramilitary types swarming over my house. I am not going to be doing squad level maneuvers with suppressive fire. I'm not looking at the end of the world.

"Are pistol caliber carbines relevant these days?"
Depends where you are and your intended use.

Obviously full power centerfire rifle cartridges have much greater power, range, and accuracy than pistol cartridges. If I want to hunt medium to large game at greater than 100 or maybe 150 yards, I feel better served with a bolt action .308 or 30-06. It depends on your local terrain.

But . . .

Due to the politics here in New York State, the legal availability of semi-autos with pistol grips, detachable magazines with more than 7 rounds, and even threaded barrels that *might* accept a flash suppressor has become problematic.

Deer hunters in Indiana may only use shotguns or rifles with pistol caliber cartridges.

Under 100 yards there few things that a good lever (or even a bolt) gun in 357 or 44 mag won't do, especially if you are a hand loader.

Consider the 357/38 special paired with a good revolver.

Only one caliber of ammo to carry. With today's ammo shortages that is a definite plus.

Easy to reload. Straight walled pistol cartridges and carbide dies are a match made in heaven. When you can't buy jacketed bullets, you can cast your own using wheel weights or recycling range lead.

Versatility. Low power and low noise 38 Special for small game and plinking. Full house 357 for deer or hogs. and anywhere in between depending on how you want to load them. Semi-autos are much more finicky about what will cycle reliably.

For those who prefer large bore, a 44 mag or 45 Colt (Ruger loads) might be just the ticket. A cast solid 320 grain flat nose 45 Colt slug going 1450 fps should be adequate for almost any game in North America except for the biggest bears.

For self defense, a pistol round which is already effective in a revolver can only be enhanced by the longer rifle barrel.

Finally, they are just FUN to shoot.

"Are pistol caliber carbines relevant these days?"
Yes. They aren't the best tool for every application, but they can get the job done within their range limitations.

Girodin

March 24, 2013, 03:05 PM

I'm just not sold on there not being a use for PCCs.

Neither am I. I think that they (and the broader class of pistol caliber rifles not just what technically meets the definition of a carbine) can be used for all sorts of things and often at a lower cost than shooting rifle. I own some and like them. Cost alone is probably enough to argue relevance. Relevance is a different question and discussion than if real rifle cartridges will do things better.

You can get into casting for way less than than the cost of an AR upper.

I'm going to discuss this somewhat ignoring the highly fluctuating prices during the last couple months. I do this because prices seem to be dropping back to normal as we speak. Even during the height of the panic a friend bought a Tac Sol .22 LR upper for right about $400. That is admittedly a good deal. One could find uppers for $250 (PSA sans BCG) pre panic and put a drop in unit in it for under $200 or a BCG. Also in the context of just being able to shoot cheap, a .22 drop in kit is significantly cheaper if one is starting with a 5.56 AR. I just looked on midway for the prices of various casting tools. It would be pretty easy to spend $400-500. One could do it for less if one bought just the bare necessities, but he or she would be spending hundred dollars. My experience with loading has been its nice and much easier to have more than the bare necessities. If one isn't already set up to hand load and had to buy that stuff too then the cost of course goes way up. One thing that people also fail to account for in hand loading/casting costs is the time they spend doing it. I load for various cartridges. Loading ones own offers lost of advantages. Some times cost is an advantage. However, if I accurately accounted for my time, it probably rarely would be. I don't want to sound pretentious so I'm not going to try and do figures but if I use my professional hourly rate, those cast bullets become REALLY expensive! Now for me loading is somewhat of a hobby itself. Others find no enjoyment in it. Over the long haul I'd wager buying a .22LR upper and shooting .22LR is cheaper than buying casting stuff, buying consumables, sourcing lead, and taking the time to do it all.

Obviously, the notable difference in casting for 357/44/45 etc is that you are shooting that caliber and not a little .22LR. That fact is going to up the enjoyment factor for some people. For them the calculation is different. It is not a per se truth that it is more fun to shoot say a 357 than a .22. I took some new shooters out awhile back, inlcuding some teenage boys. I though they would be really into some of the "cool" guns I brought (various AKs, ARs, PS90, a wide array of center fire handguns) but a number of them commented at they end they liked a couple of the .22 LR guns best (which was awesome because they are SO MUCH cheaper to feed). The point of mentioning that is that for you or I we may calculate cost versus enjoyment differently than other people and thus cannot really talk about it definitively because it varies person to person.

I'm not saying anyone should buy a P-Cal levergun over an AR. just that people dismiss PCCs way too quickly when they are in fact very versatile guns, not to mention far less expensive in most cases.

Well to be fair what you did state, and your statement that we were discussing, was the following: "They [pistol caliber carbines] are far more versatile all around guns than AR-type firearms . . ."

I am right with you that they are versatile guns and that they are often cheaper to both acquire and shoot than various AR type guns. That, however, is a radically different statement than saying they are more versatile as a general purpose gun than any AR type. I just don't think there is much of an argument at all for the latter statement. That's not a knock on pistol caliber rifles either, more a testament to how versatile some of the AR guns really are.

mavracer

March 24, 2013, 03:51 PM

It seems that many here confuse less capable with incapable. But I find this very common with this community, people read less accurate and think in accurate. A rifle caliber carbine is going to be more capable, this doesn't mean a PCC is incapable.

Warp

March 24, 2013, 04:06 PM

It seems that many here confuse less capable with incapable. But I find this very common with this community, people read less accurate and think in accurate. A rifle caliber carbine is going to be more capable, this doesn't mean a PCC is incapable.

People also tend to have a very hard time realizing that just because, in their opinion or experience, one choice is, overall, better than another, that the better choice isn't necessarily superior in every single way imaginable, and to every person in every situation. That is part of why different people have different firearms.

There are some things a Pistol caliber carbine does better than a rifle caliber carbine. That doesn't mean a PCC renders the rifle caliber useless. And vice versa.

colorado_handgunner

March 24, 2013, 04:14 PM

not for me. AR is I roll.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

mavracer

March 24, 2013, 04:17 PM

"There are some things a Pistol caliber carbine does better than a rifle caliber carbine."
Name one thing that actually pertains to making a shot that a PCC is capable of doing better.

Warp

March 24, 2013, 04:20 PM

"There are some things a Pistol caliber carbine does better than a rifle caliber carbine."
Name one thing that actually pertains to making a shot that a PCC is capable of doing better.

The fact that you have to qualify your question should, right there, justify my statement.

But...less recoil makes shots easier to make/more quickly. Less muzzle blast and flash is less disorienting and can also help with follow up up shots. More experience as a result of more practice because you could afford more ammo can also make your shots better.''

mavracer

March 24, 2013, 05:26 PM

But...less recoil makes shots easier to make/more quickly. Less muzzle blast and flash is less disorienting and can also help with follow up shots. More experience as a result of more practice because you could afford more ammo can also make your shots better.''
PCC don't universally have less recoil, blast and aren't necessarily cheaper to load than rifle rounds so your statement really has no standing. As others and I have tried to point out to you rifle rounds are capable of being loaded down and loaded with cast bullets. So given that I can shoot the same bullets in my marlin 336 35 rem at the same velocity for the same price as I can from my 1894C 357 give ma a shot you think you can make with a PCC that can't be made with a rifle.

meanmrmustard

March 24, 2013, 08:20 PM

PCC don't universally have less recoil, blast and aren't necessarily cheaper to load than rifle rounds so your statement really has no standing. As others and I have tried to point out to you rifle rounds are capable of being loaded down and loaded with cast bullets. So given that I can shoot the same bullets in my marlin 336 35 rem at the same velocity for the same price as I can from my 1894C 357 give ma a shot you think you can make with a PCC that can't be made with a rifle.
Are you firing 35 Rem out of your side arms, though?

Do you carry a revolver that large to necessitate ammo commonality?

Warp

March 24, 2013, 08:24 PM

PCC don't universally have less recoil, blast and aren't necessarily cheaper to load than rifle rounds so your statement really has no standing. As others and I have tried to point out to you rifle rounds are capable of being loaded down and loaded with cast bullets. So given that I can shoot the same bullets in my marlin 336 35 rem at the same velocity for the same price as I can from my 1894C 357 give ma a shot you think you can make with a PCC that can't be made with a rifle.

A person who does not reload cannot load down rifle rounds, now can they?

Also, which pistol are you shooting 35 rem out of? :confused:

You need to broaden your horizons and realize that just because you selected something that you feel is best for you and your situation, that doesn't mean it is best for every single other person in every single other situation.

mavracer

March 24, 2013, 11:06 PM

Are you firing 35 Rem out of your side arms, though?
What ammunition fits in my sidearm has absolute no bearing on making a shot with my longarm.
Do you carry a revolver that large to necessitate ammo commonality?
Since we are talking about actually making a shot with a longgun what style handgun is in my holster is irrelevant.
A person who does not reload cannot load down rifle rounds, now can they?
I only gave one example of one possibility there are other solutions to include conversions and subcaliber inserts.
Also, which pistol are you shooting 35 rem out of?
Again what does this have to do with making a shot with a longgun?
You need to broaden your horizons and realize that just because you selected something that you feel is best for you and your situation
Please by all means enlighten me what is the situation where a shot is going to be possible for you to make with a PCC that I can't make with a carbine chambered in a rifle caliber.

Warp

March 24, 2013, 11:27 PM

Please by all means enlighten me what is the situation where a shot is going to be possible for you to make with a PCC that I can't make with a carbine chambered in a rifle caliber.

What caliber is your rifle caliber carbine?

And I don't know why you cannot comprehend this, but there are factors beyond "can I make a shot with it?" that go into firearm selection.

meanmrmustard

March 24, 2013, 11:54 PM

What ammunition fits in my sidearm has absolute no bearing on making a shot with my longarm.

Since we are talking about actually making a shot with a longgun what style handgun is in my holster is irrelevant.

I only gave one example of one possibility there are other solutions to include conversions and subcaliber inserts.

Again what does this have to do with making a shot with a longgun?

Please by all means enlighten me what is the situation where a shot is going to be possible for you to make with a PCC that I can't make with a carbine chambered in a rifle caliber.
What is this insistence of making "a shot"? What shot do you want to make! That, to me, is irrelevant as well. Lets call it a combat scenario where, like battle fields these days, don't see engagement but at a few hundred yards. Certainly, you can hit something at 200yards with a 357 rifle...can't you?

You're skirting around what Warp and I are getting at, and obviously not answering the question: You state that your 35 outperforms your 357, in rifle barrels, and you have the ability to make some fancy shot or something that you've not specified. Wonderful.

You're still carrying two different cartridges. 35 rem is not on your side. Strike one for the rifle.

357 weighs less total than 35. You can carry more ammo on your person. If your packing a 357 revolver, youve got more ammo there to shove into the long gun if need be. Strike two.

The 35 typically is holding less rounds than the 357, and generating more recoil energy for the same weight bullets. Less shots, and harder to bring back on target when you do begin shooting. You also have a higher volume of fire with the 357, as its packing more rounds. not a SAW, but certainly effective. Strike three.

Your 357 just won the game. Well, of the two cartridges YOU listed, in platforms of equal action type.

mavracer

March 25, 2013, 12:16 AM

And I don't know why you cannot comprehend this, but there are factors beyond "can I make a shot with it?" that go into firearm selection.
I would think most would agree that the selection of a firearm that is incapable of making a desired shot would be a bad selection. If you wern't in such a blind fury to defend PCCs you would too.
What is this insistence of making "a shot"? What shot do you want to make! That, to me, is irrelevant as well.
So let me see if I have this correct you claim that a PCC can do something that a RCC can't and when I insist an answer you claim it's irrelevant and claim I'm skirting the question. Is your real name Obama?

Warp

March 25, 2013, 12:39 AM

I would think most would agree that the selection of a firearm that is incapable of making a desired shot would be a bad selection.

What shot is a pistol caliber incapable of making?

What in the heck are you even talking about??

So when you download your rifle caliber to perform like a pistol caliber in order to get those sets of benefits, it still performs like a rifle caliber...have you redefined the laws of physics? :confused:

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 12:39 AM

Is your real name Obama? Wow. Very classy, fella.

If you recall, I stated combat range, several hundred yard engagement. Either cartridge could be effective, or are you only wanting me to give you a ridiculously long range? We both know that the rifle trumps a PCC at long range. Wasn't aware I had to give a "Obvious Facts 101" class this evening.;)

You've been told what a PCC can do versus the rifle: not sure i can get any more blatant, or are we not reading posts anymore? You ignoring fact and/or logistics, or just name calling?

I don't think superior long range performance is an excuse for lack of practice, and plenty folks do indeed practice. I imagine some can even effectively make positive hits on torso targets at ranges from point blank out to, say, 200 meters...with a PCC. But, maybe not as accurately as say someone with a 35 Remington revolver, which last I searched, doesn't exist. So we are still at an impass: you quote a "shot" of undefined range, target size, and circumstance. How is the PCC at a disadvantage?

Ps: you don't need either for SD. Just buy yourself a shotgun!:neener:

Warp

March 25, 2013, 12:43 AM

I would think most would agree that the selection of a firearm that is incapable of making a desired shot would be a bad selection. If you wern't in such a blind fury to defend PCCs you would too.

So let me see if I have this correct you claim that a PCC can do something that a RCC can't and when I insist an answer you claim it's irrelevant and claim I'm skirting the question. Is your real name Obama?

lol

I suppose it would surprise you to know that I do not currently own a single pistol caliber carbine or rifle, then, eh?

I'm not in a "blind fury" to do anything. I am, repeatedly, informing you of some of the benefits that are offered by pistol caliber carbines, and making you aware of reasons why some people in some situations might choose a pistol caliber carbine, and trying to get you to realize that just because you found a solution that you think is perfect for yourself in your situation that doesn't mean the same solution is the one and only acceptable answer for every single person in every conceivable situation in the entire world throughout all of perpetuity.

Inebriated

March 25, 2013, 12:52 AM

But...less recoil makes shots easier to make/more quickly. Less muzzle blast and flash is less disorienting and can also help with follow up up shots. More experience as a result of more practice because you could afford more ammo can also make your shots better.''
Less recoil, muzzle blast, flash, and ammo cost is all relative.

But for the sake of discussion, lets compare 9mm and 5.45 in their respective platforms (we'll say the 9mm is in an AR and the 5.45 is in an AK). Both guns have so little recoil, ANYONE can shoot them effectively. 5.45's flash can easily be negated with a $20 flash hider. 5.45x39 is cheaper to shoot than 9mm. Even if you reload, you're not going to match the price of 5.45x39. Add to that the massively larger ballistic effect on the target, and it's just seems hard for me to justify a PCC over a rifle.

And that's just comparing 9mm... Change that to .40, 357 SIG, 10mm, .45, .44, or .357 Magnum, and the recoil and cost just go up.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 01:02 AM

And that's just comparing 9mm... Change that to .40, 357 SIG, 10mm, .45, .44, or .357 Magnum, and the recoil and cost just go up. As do the power and effectiveness of the cartridge. 10mm is no 545, but now we are comparing a thumper of a pistol round instead of a 9mm, which I'd say could be considered mild in comparison.

Oddly, over 80% of us are either disillusioned, or appreciate the pros of a good PCC!

jim243

March 25, 2013, 01:07 AM

Mav, Mean, Warp you guys are beeting this post to death, enough is enough already.

Jim

BCRider

March 25, 2013, 01:09 AM

Mavracer, you're both missing the point about the handgun connection and at the same time you're getting away from the whole question posed by the thread. Namely that it's about PISTOL caliber carbines and if they are relevant or not. So that's why the others are trying to drag you back to the topic by asking about what handgun you have that holds .35Remington ammo.

No one is going to suggest that a PISTOL caliber carbine is going to match or outshoot a RIFLE caliber carbine. Obviously a PISTOL caliber carbine is not going to be able to reach out much past somewhere around 100 to 200 yards, depending on the caliber and load choices, with total effectiveness.

But regular handguns become difficult for many of us to use for varmints or other smaller targets requiring some degree of precision at around 35 to 50 yards. That's where a PCC comes in. With the greater stability it can fill in that gap of 50 to around 150 yards and still "make the shot" in perfectly adequite fashion. AND it can do so using the same ammo the shooter keeps in stock for their handguns. And that is the whole enchilada in a nutshell :D

Obviously from your posts you're not a fan of a rifle that does not shoot rifle caliber rounds. And that's fine. But for some of us and for some uses a pistol caliber can do the job just fine.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 01:12 AM

Less recoil, muzzle blast, flash, and ammo cost is all relative.

But for the sake of discussion, lets compare 9mm and 5.45 in their respective platforms (we'll say the 9mm is in an AR and the 5.45 is in an AK). Both guns have so little recoil, ANYONE can shoot them effectively. 5.45's flash can easily be negated with a $20 flash hider. 5.45x39 is cheaper to shoot than 9mm. Even if you reload, you're not going to match the price of 5.45x39. Add to that the massively larger ballistic effect on the target, and it's just seems hard for me to justify a PCC over a rifle.

But I already have thousands of rounds of 9x19 and 0 rounds of 5.45, and the muzzle blast/repercussion of the rifle round isn't going to go anywhere because you threw a $20 flash hider on the end of the barrel. ;) I also don't personally care to deal with corrosive ammo.

And I'm not the only one that meets the above criteria.

Inebriated

March 25, 2013, 01:16 AM

As do the power and effectiveness of the cartridge. 10mm is no 545, but now we are comparing a thumper of a pistol round instead of a 9mm, which I'd say could be considered mild in comparison.

Oddly, over 80% of us are either disillusioned, or appreciate the pros of a good PCC!

Sure, but when you increase the recoil of the pistol round, you can also increase the recoil of the rifle round (to keep the comparisons fair). I've not shot a 10mm PCC, but I've shot several .44 and .357 lever guns, and I would much rather shoot a 7.62x39, .30-30, .300blk, etc., and gain the extra energy and ballistic effect.

And I said nothing about not appreciating the PCC's pro's.

But I already have thousands of rounds of 9x19 and 0 rounds of 5.45,
Sure, and as I said before, PCC's are great for ammo consolidation.
and the muzzle blast/repercussion of the rifle round isn't going to go anywhere because you threw a $20 flash hider on the end of the barrel.
Of course not. But that extra 1k ft. lbs. of energy sure is going somewhere when you go with a PCC. And if you're shooting any firearm without ear pro, you're doing hearing damage, both immediately and for the long term. Touch off a 9mm PCC and 5.45x39 rifle indoors without ear pro and tell me if you feel any more warm and fuzzy having fired the PCC.
I also don't personally care to deal with corrosive ammo.
Then shoot Wolf/Tula. Still comes in comparably to reloaded 9mm.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 01:24 AM

Sure, but when you increase the recoil of the pistol round, you can also increase the recoil of the rifle round (to keep the comparisons fair). I've not shot a 10mm PCC, but I've shot several .44 and .357 lever guns, and I would much rather shoot a 7.62x39, .30-30, .300blk, etc., and gain the extra energy and ballistic effect.

And I said nothing about not appreciating the PCC's pro's.

Sure, and as I said before, PCC's are great for ammo consolidation.

Of course not. But that extra 1k ft. lbs. of energy sure is going somewhere when you go with a PCC. And if you're shooting any firearm without ear pro, you're doing hearing damage, both immediately and for the long term. Touch off a 9mm PCC and 5.45x39 rifle indoors without ear pro and tell me if you feel any more warm and fuzzy having fired the PCC.

Then shoot Wolf/Tula. Still comes in comparably to reloaded 9mm.
Maybe not the 44, but the 10 and 357 are kittens in the shoulder bumping department in rifle form, much more so than a 30-30 for sure.

My statement about the percentage was an observation of the poll numbers, not a bash at you.

"Almost always" is somewhat accurate. But one thing they cannot do more often than not is share ammo with a side arm AND a carbine. They (PCCs) can do no less than as well inside their effective range as far as hits on target, and with your more powerful cartridges, be deadly to boot.

Like I stated earlier, and I'll add .30 Carbine: Some, like the 5.7, shine in both a pistol and carbine.

Ash

March 25, 2013, 05:52 AM

I picked Yes because I use an M1 Carbine, which is basically in that category. I also have a Mini-14GB, then move up to full-power arms like a Garand. Pistol caliber carbines have their place - nice to use when you are wandering about and need some stray animal control.

I have no use for an AR but understand folks who use them. I don't actually use a rifle that fires the same round as a pistol outside my .22lr's, but understand why others do.

Vern Humphrey

March 25, 2013, 09:32 AM

And I don't know why you cannot comprehend this, but there are factors beyond "can I make a shot with it?" that go into firearm selection.
Yeah. The others include, "When I make the shot will it have the effect I want?"

That factor militates in favor of more powerful cartridges.

mavracer

March 25, 2013, 09:45 AM

You've been told what a PCC can do versus the rifle: not sure i can get any more blatant, or are we not reading posts anymore?
Besides taking the same ammunition that your pistol can. Which would seem you missed out on in "Obvious facts 101" class.
What can a PCC do that you can't do with a RCC?
That's why I ask about "THE SHOT"
Just answer the question what shot can be made, what target can be knocked down, or what game can be harvested with a PCC that couldn't be done with a rifle.
Also for the record I have several PCC and love them dearly but I well understand there capabilities and limitations.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 10:00 AM

Yeah. The others include, "When I make the shot will it have the effect I want?"

That factor militates in favor of more powerful cartridges.

Why isn't your rifle chambered in something more along the lines of .338 Lapua or .50 BMG? :confused:

MCgunner

March 25, 2013, 10:02 AM

Sure are a lot of mall ninjas on this thread. Ain't there any Fudds left in the world, or has everyone traded shooting deer and small game for killing zombies? :rolleyes:

Name one thing that actually pertains to making a shot that a PCC is capable of doing better.

I've already told ya, hunting everything from squirrel to hogs in heavy cover (.357 Carbine, choose your handload). Hunting in heavy cover, for that matter. A .44 magnum lever gun is easy to carry, quick to the eye, very fast in heavy cover, and packs a big punch for hogs or deer.

Maybe a .454 Casull M92 Rossi stainless as a camp companion in Alaska. Of course, it'd be no better than a Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70, but I'll take it over ANY AR15 Mattel toy against big bears.

Vern Humphrey

March 25, 2013, 10:10 AM

Why isn't your rifle chambered in something more along the lines of .338 Lapua or .50 BMG?
How do you know it isn't?;)

I have quite a few rifles -- and match the cartridge to the intended use. I haven't found a use where a pistol cartridge in a long arm is the optimum solution.

Furncliff

March 25, 2013, 10:45 AM

Perhaps... transitioning a new shooter to CF rifle?

Warp

March 25, 2013, 10:59 AM

How do you know it isn't?;)

I have quite a few rifles -- and match the cartridge to the intended use. I haven't found a use where a pistol cartridge in a long arm is the optimum solution.

For you it might not be.

For somebody else, it might.

fireside44

March 25, 2013, 12:03 PM

If they weren't relevant, they wouldn't sell them and people who do serious work with firearms wouldn't have them. Also, they are much cheaper to shoot and reload. That is relevance if I've ever seen it. Tough to beat a good 9mm, .38/.357, .45acp, .44 mag/special, pistol-rifle combo either for guys who need serious weapons and are on a budget. There is mucho sense in doing so. A lot of versatility there.

mavracer

March 25, 2013, 12:29 PM

I've already told ya, hunting everything from squirrel to hogs in heavy cover (.357 Carbine, choose your handload). Hunting in heavy cover, for that matter. A .44 magnum lever gun is easy to carry, quick to the eye, very fast in heavy cover, and packs a big punch for hogs or deer.
I can easily hunt anything from squirrels to hogs with a 30/30 or 35 rem, hunting in heavy cover it's just as quick to the eye and packs plenty of punch for deer and hogs and gives me more range.

Maybe a .454 Casull M92 Rossi stainless as a camp companion in Alaska. Of course, it'd be no better than a Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70, but I'll take it over ANY AR15 Mattel toy against big bears.
My point exactly they don't do anything better the only thing they do is chamber a round that can be used in a pistol.
BTW I wouldn't have a problem using a AR carbine chambered in 458 Socom or 50 Beowulf for Alaska, but then I don't really have a bias toward any platform.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 01:03 PM

Besides taking the same ammunition that your pistol can. Which would seem you missed out on in "Obvious facts 101" class.
What can a PCC do that you can't do with a RCC?
That's why I ask about "THE SHOT"
Just answer the question what shot can be made, what target can be knocked down, or what game can be harvested with a PCC that couldn't be done with a rifle.
Also for the record I have several PCC and love them dearly but I well understand there capabilities and limitations.
Class is in session...again.

What do you want to do with your rifle?

I'm still waiting to hear a scenario in which I can't get the job done with a PCC OTHER than long range.

We can go from there.

mavracer

March 25, 2013, 02:06 PM

I'm still waiting to hear a scenario in which I can't get the job done with a PCC OTHER than long range.
I'm not the one that claimed pistol cartridges are capable of doing things that can't be done with a rifle cartridge. That Being said we really need to quit.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 02:12 PM

I'm not the one that claimed pistol cartridges are capable of doing things that can't be done with a rifle cartridge. That Being said we really need to quit.
Agreed, but I'll add before we do that I never claimed any superiority for the pistol carbine that wasn't obvious nor true.

We can agree to disagree, sir.

DMK

March 25, 2013, 02:17 PM

I have a 16" barreled .357 lever gun. I don't reload. I don't see a need to make a shot past 50 yards, much less 100.

I can shoot .38s for plinking, I can shoot .357s for more serious purposes. I can shoot both rounds in a few handguns that I own. Accurate enough, light enough, compact enough, powerful enough.

This is the right gun for me.

Inebriated

March 25, 2013, 02:27 PM

Name one thing that actually pertains to making a shot that a PCC is capable of doing better.
I've already told ya, hunting everything from squirrel to hogs in heavy cover (.357 Carbine, choose your handload). Hunting in heavy cover, for that matter. A .44 magnum lever gun is easy to carry, quick to the eye, very fast in heavy cover, and packs a big punch for hogs or deer.

Maybe a .454 Casull M92 Rossi stainless as a camp companion in Alaska. Of course, it'd be no better than a Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70, but I'll take it over ANY AR15 Mattel toy against big bears.
None of those things are done BETTER by the PCC! Yes, a PCC can do the same thing a rifle can in the same scenario, but by no means does that mean it does the job better.

Oh, and I don't know where an AR and bears came into the discussion, but an AR in .458 SOCOM is perfect for bears.

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 03:16 PM

I'm still waiting to hear a scenario in which I can't get the job done with a PCC OTHER than long range.

Hunting dangerous game? I'm sure one will argue it could be done. However, they would be ignoring the legal minimums on guns for that. I don't think anyone would argue it would be remotely prudent to do it.

I think this discussion has gone nowhere for a few pages. It is just talking in circles around the following ideas that most everyone seems to agree on.

Pistol caliber guns offer a lot of capability.

They cannot match ballistics of true rifle rounds.

Pistol cartridges are a short range affair.

A, if not THE, major advantage of pistol caliber guns is a economic one.

Outside of economics they have a couple other niches where they have particular appeal, places where their are legal restrictions, when one wants to share ammo (and possibly mags) with a pistol.

They are also fun guns to own and shoot.

PorkChopsMmm

March 25, 2013, 03:22 PM

Girodin, I agree on the round-and-round discussion. The only other benefit of the PCC I can think of is because of the smaller round the purpose built rifles tend to be smaller/lighter, an example would be my Rossi 92. The receivers just don't need to be as big to handle the longer rifle cartridges.

Rudedog

March 25, 2013, 04:03 PM

I'd go with the .357 mag in a lever gun like the Rossi 92.
You can carry a lot of loose rounds on you so you can top off the magazine when needed.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 04:58 PM

Hunting dangerous game? I'm sure one will argue it could be done. However, they would be ignoring the legal minimums on guns for that. I don't think anyone would argue it would be remotely prudent to do it.

I think this discussion has gone nowhere for a few pages. It is just talking in circles around the following ideas that most everyone seems to agree on.

Pistol caliber guns offer a lot of capability.

They cannot match ballistics of true rifle rounds.

Pistol cartridges are a short range affair.

A, if not THE, major advantage of pistol caliber guns is a economic one.

Outside of economics they have a couple other niches where they have particular appeal, places where their are legal restrictions, when one wants to share ammo (and possibly mags) with a pistol.

They are also fun guns to own and shoot.

Sounds about right.

Vern Humphrey

March 25, 2013, 05:20 PM

Perhaps... transitioning a new shooter to CF rifle?
I just use a reduced handload -- for example, a 130 grain bullet at around 2400 fps in .30-06, or a light cast bullet at around 1500 fps.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 05:24 PM

I just use a reduced handload -- for example, a 130 grain bullet at around 2400 fps in .30-06, or a light cast bullet at around 1500 fps.

That's great, for you.

But not everybody reloads.

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 05:36 PM

The only other benefit of the PCC I can think of is because of the smaller round the purpose built rifles tend to be smaller/lighter, an example would be my Rossi 92.

I think that in most cases you will find that as to smaller, the real limit in most instances is going to be the legally imposed limit of 26" of overall length and 16" barrel length I have a number of guns in various calibers that are limited by such legalities. This is particularly true when one discusses bullpups (which make receiver length much less of an issue, and make any non NFA lever gun seem pretty big by comparison, and any NFA gun loses mag capacity). Bullpups can be had in both pistol land rifle calibers and in either case are likely to be limited by the 26" OAL. I think an AUG (and clones) is just slightly over 26" with a 16" barrel. I suppose it could be argued that in a ground up design one could still use more barrel and less receiver length to get to the 26"

As to weight, I think you are likely correct, in saying that in general they are often lighter. Much of any such discussion, however, will turn on the particular guns in question though. It appears that the Rossi you mention is particularly lightweight at around 5lbs. Most of the marlin lever guns in pistol calibers tend to be more like 6.5 lbs. Real lightweight non NFA ARs can come in below 5 lbs (a typical recipe includes a 14.5" pencil barrel with pinned A2, a cav arms lower, carbon fiber hand guard, etc) If, weight is a big concern one can obtain some pretty light weight options either way. I think my lightest non NFA pistol caliber rifle is a 9x19 kel tec that is around 4 lbs unloaded. Kel tec makes the SU 16 that is 4.7 lbs unloaded. One could probably shave a bit off of the SU-16 if he or she really wanted to (perhaps one could also turn down the sub 2k's barrel but it isn't really think as it is, I've heard of people having issues getting it threaded). At any rate it is already lighter than the admittedly very light Rossi you mentioned (and one could of course make that rossi lighter too if he or she were determined to do that). The kel tecs are a useful reference point because they compare guns made of similar materials and of similar quality/robustness.

In sum, generally I would agree with the point many of them are smaller or lighter. Really though, as with much of the discussion in this thread, it will come down to the particular guns at issue. If one is highly concerned about size and/or weight there are options either way that are likely to work well. If we start throwing in NFA options, and that is a legit option for many people, then the water gets even muddier.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 05:37 PM

Hunting dangerous game? I'm sure one will argue it could be done. However, they would be ignoring the legal minimums on guns for that. I don't think anyone would argue it would be remotely prudent to do it.

I think this discussion has gone nowhere for a few pages. It is just talking in circles around the following ideas that most everyone seems to agree on.

Pistol caliber guns offer a lot of capability.

They cannot match ballistics of true rifle rounds.

Pistol cartridges are a short range affair.

A, if not THE, major advantage of pistol caliber guns is a economic one.

Outside of economics they have a couple other niches where they have particular appeal, places where their are legal restrictions, when one wants to share ammo (and possibly mags) with a pistol.

They are also fun guns to own and shoot.
I was talking combat scenario, not hunting. So, dangerous game hunting brought up in a discussion of the usefulness of a PCC is a moot subject. The rhinos and lions are safe.

Round and round? You don't like gun discussions on a gun forum? Hmmm...wouldn't be the first time several folks didn't agree on something, and things trudged on.

I'd argue that depending on the cartridge, a PCC can be a mid range affair. But, no, it still won't hit a man size target at 600 meters with effectiveness. I agree.

Economics? Very much so.

Fun, indeed.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 05:38 PM

Let's not forget indoor ranges that don't allow rifle calibers. ;)

Vern Humphrey

March 25, 2013, 05:40 PM

That's great, for you.

But not everybody reloads.
If you don't reload, you just ain't right.:p

Seriously, you can buy reduced recoil ammunition.

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 05:44 PM

That's great, for you.

But not everybody reloads. Haven't we covered that a few times already?

You really do need to figure out that not everybody is exactly like you. And they don't need to be.

Well if we are discussion the abilities of the gun and not the shooter, I think it is fair enough to talk about what the gun can do with tailored loads. Its kind of like saying we should discount a rifles ability to shoot to 800 yards because the majority of people in this thread probably cannot get consistent hits at that distance. Just because one doesn't currently load that is not a true limit of the gun but of the person.

I think it is just as fair to point out that given a persons limits a capability of a gun might not make any difference to that person. I think it is fair to note that one gun can do this or that with commonly available cartridges while others will require a person to hand load or lose the capability.

I'm just not sure that it is fair to accuse someone who mentions what a gun is capable of with tailored ammo to think that everyone is just like them.

I might have noted that for a new shooter you just put the suppressor on. I know that not everyone does or even can use suppressors. That doesn't mean that mentioning them has NO merit. Now I probably shouldn't talk about it in a way that implies everyone can do that either. To be honest I don't think Vern did that in his mention of hand loading. He simply stated what he does.

MCgunner

March 25, 2013, 05:46 PM

I can easily hunt anything from squirrels to hogs with a 30/30 or 35 rem, hunting in heavy cover it's just as quick to the eye and packs plenty of punch for deer and hogs and gives me more range.

A squib load in that big a case and accurate? What powder? Besides, when I crank out rounds for my .357/.38 lever gun, I do it on a progressive press and cast for it to keep cost down. Reloading, truth be told, is the main reason I wanted a .357 carbine.

I have a .30-30...it's a pistol. :neener:

That's great, for you.

But not everybody reloads.

As I stated, reloading is one of the reasons I wanted a .357 carbine. I can shoot cast lead, dirt cheap ammo, and I can crank 'em out on my progressive. I do load for rifle calibers, of course. I load for everything I own save 20 gauge and rimfire, but having the Rossi lately has been a great thing. I'm not having a lot of problems finding reloading supplies. I picked up a pound of Bullseye and 500 SP primers Saturday and 25 lbs of lead. I can't find a friggin' .22LR round in the state of Texas! I've got some shorts I've been burning in my old Remington bolt .22 and my Rossi revolver, but .22LR is mysteriously missing from the state of Texas. :rolleyes: So, I've been shooting a lot of light .38 105 grain SWCs out of my Rossi at swinging targets. It's kept me shooting/plinking, lately. My other alternative is Black Powder, another venue some of you folks have no use for, but I love shooting in rifles and revolvers.

Life's too short to rule out a gun I want. I might not NEED it, but if I want it, I get it. :D

Warp

March 25, 2013, 05:48 PM

Just because one doesn't currently load that is not a true limit of the gun but of the person.

...whether or not a person reloads is a factor for them when they decide which gun they ought to get for a particular use.

Does that makes sense to you?

Do you agree with that?

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 05:59 PM

I was talking combat scenario, not hunting. So, dangerous game hunting brought up in a discussion of the usefulness of a PCC is a moot subject. The rhinos and lions are safe.

You ought to clearly ask the question you want to ask, not other broader questions. If I totally missed a context that should have been clear it was likely because I was skimming a lot of the trite semantic based back and forth, and you have my apologies. To answer your newly clarified question, defeat armor. For many civilians in the US there are legal prohibitions on AP handgun ammo so even soft armor will defeat the legal bullets coming out of a pistol caliber. Of course there is hard armor that will defeat pistol rounds while other rifle rounds will pass through. Another answer would be have a bullet construction that offers reasonably reliable terminal ballistics (say can meet FBI standards) while simultaneously mitigating over penetration. The rifle can also offer vastly superior terminal ballistics (particular if one is limited by the strictures of international law to not use ammunition that expands or flattens easily). A serious increase in terminal ballistics is kind of a big deal when you are shooting people who present a threat to you. Why do you think so many professionals are moving from sub guns to things like the MK18 or similar style/configuration of weapons. Now, a lot of bad guys have moved on to a better place grace a various sub guns. Certainly a pistol caliber gun is a pretty formidable weapon inside of 150 yards or so. It simply does not have all the capabilities of rifle rounds though.

I've tried to discuss the issues as relating to various situations. It would be easy to say, no combat for a civie, or LEO, or military, and the discussion will change. Its hard to hit between the goal posts when one keeps moving them.

Vern Humphrey

March 25, 2013, 06:02 PM

...whether or not a person reloads is a factor for them when they decide which gun they ought to get for a particular use.

Does that makes sense to you?

Do you agree with that?
Well, yes and no. I can buy a reloading outfit for my .30-06 cheaper than I can buy a .357 caliber carbine.

And I can load a .30-06 down to 1600 fps or less. But I can't load a .357 up to 3000 fps.

So from a cost/benefit ratio perspective, the .30-06 and reloading outfit is a better buy than two rifles, one in .30-06 and one in .357.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 06:04 PM

Well, yes and no. I can buy a reloading outfit for my .30-06 cheaper than I can buy a .357 caliber carbine.

And I can load a .30-06 down to 1600 fps or less. But I can't load a .357 up to 3000 fps.

So from a cost/benefit ratio perspective, the .30-06 and reloading outfit is a better buy than two rifles, one in .30-06 and one in .357.

Okay then.

What we established here is that "but you an reload XXX" doesn't apply to everybody. Not everybody reloads, and not everybody wants to reload.

And that is perfectly acceptable.

Do you understand this?

Do you agree with this?

Highland Ranger

March 25, 2013, 06:15 PM

Any suggestions for PCC's in 45 or 9mm?

I have a 44mag wheel/lever combination.

The idea of interchangeable mags appeals to me.

Who makes these? Beretta? Sig?

Vern Humphrey

March 25, 2013, 06:16 PM

Okay then.

What we established here is that "but you an reload XXX" doesn't apply to everybody. Not everybody reloads, and not everybody wants to reload.

And that is perfectly acceptable.

Do you understand this?

Do you agree with this?
I don't agree that you get to make after-the-fact rules.

When someone asks a question as the OP did, I assume he is asking for advice. My advice is there is no task that can't be handled better by a rifle-caliber weapon. When someone points out reduced recoil or something like that -- it's perfectly fair to point out that you can load a .30-06 to the levels of a .357 carbine, but you can't load a .357 carbine to .30-06 levels.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 06:20 PM

I don't agree that you get to make after-the-fact rules.

When someone asks a question as the OP did, I assume he is asking for advice. My advice is there is no task that can't be handled better by a rifle-caliber weapon. When someone points out reduced recoil or something like that -- it's perfectly fair to point out that you can load a .30-06 to the levels of a .357 carbine, but you can't load a .357 carbine to .30-06 levels.

Some people not reloading, and not wanting to reload, isn't an "after the fact rule"...it's reality of the real world.

mavracer

March 25, 2013, 06:26 PM

A squib load in that big a case and accurate? What powder? Besides, when I crank out rounds for my .357/.38 lever gun, I do it on a progressive press and cast for it to keep cost down. Reloading, truth be told, is the main reason I wanted a .357 carbine.
Trail boss and unique both work well. I also have a 38/55 that runs well with AA5744 and a 245gr cast bullet I can get about the same velocity as any 240 gr cast 44 mag load although the drop will be much less with the 38/55s better BC. Any bullet you cast for 357 can be used in a 35 rem and I load all kinds of rifle rounds on my progressive.

Vern Humphrey

March 25, 2013, 06:32 PM

Some people not reloading, and not wanting to reload, isn't an "after the fact rule"...it's reality of the real world.
It's also not a rule.

When you tell me that I can't bring up reloading, then you are creating an after-the-fact rule.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 06:39 PM

It's also not a rule.

When you tell me that I can't bring up reloading, then you are creating an after-the-fact rule.

That is a straw man. You can bring up reloading all day long. But you can't proclaim that nobody out there could possibly have a use where a pistol caliber carbine is a better choice, for them, than a rifle caliber carbine, because of reloading...because not everybody reloads, or wants to reload.

mavracer

March 25, 2013, 06:39 PM

Any suggestions for PCC's in 45 or 9mm?
I think the Beretta storm 9mm share mags not too sure if the 45s do or not.
Kel tec makes a 9mm carbine in a couple different versions one that takes Beretta mags, one that takes Glock mags and a couple others.

Vern Humphrey

March 25, 2013, 06:49 PM

That is a straw man.
Get a dictionary and look up "straw man."

You can bring up reloading all day long. But you can't proclaim that nobody out there could possibly have a use where a pistol caliber carbine is a better choice, for them, than a rifle caliber carbine, because of reloading...because not everybody reloads, or wants to reload.
Now that's a straw m an. You're pretending that's my argument. It isn't. My argument is that standard rifle calibers can do anything a pistol caliber carbin can do -- including fire reduced recoil loads.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 06:51 PM

My argument is that standard rifle calibers can do anything a pistol caliber carbin can do -- including fire reduced recoil loads.

...if you reload.

Not everybody reloads, and not everybody wants to reload. And that is perfectly acceptable.

Not to mention the other benefits that have been discussed ITT...many times over.

Inebriated

March 25, 2013, 07:23 PM

No, you go with a lower recoiling cartridge.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 07:27 PM

You ought to clearly ask the question you want to ask, not other broader questions. If I totally missed a context that should have been clear it was likely because I was skimming a lot of the trite semantic based back and forth, and you have my apologies. To answer your newly clarified question, defeat armor. For many civilians in the US there are legal prohibitions on AP handgun ammo so even soft armor will defeat the legal bullets coming out of a pistol caliber. Of course there is hard armor that will defeat pistol rounds while other rifle rounds will pass through. Another answer would be have a bullet construction that offers reasonably reliable terminal ballistics (say can meet FBI standards) while simultaneously mitigating over penetration. The rifle can also offer vastly superior terminal ballistics (particular if one is limited by the strictures of international law to not use ammunition that expands or flattens easily). A serious increase in terminal ballistics is kind of a big deal when you are shooting people who present a threat to you. Why do you think so many professionals are moving from sub guns to things like the MK18 or similar style/configuration of weapons. Now, a lot of bad guys have moved on to a better place grace a various sub guns. Certainly a pistol caliber gun is a pretty formidable weapon inside of 150 yards or so. It simply does not have all the capabilities of rifle rounds though.

I've tried to discuss the issues as relating to various situations. It would be easy to say, no combat for a civie, or LEO, or military, and the discussion will change. Its hard to hit between the goal posts when one keeps moving them.
Trite? Semantics?

Kind of a sorry apology considering I made mention of "combat" in several posts.

I can give my proof and opinions, ideas and rhetoric same as the next guy. But I can't make you read it, no matter how often I repeat it.

Also, what if your enemy is wearing more than soft armor? I mean, you've thrown in a very good variable: What if they have soft armor?

What if they have "big boy" vests, or several that are layered? I've seen tests of .308 win against three bullet proof vests layered, simulating an actual hostage situation that had happened previously. The .308 failed.

I believe Box o Truth, that's where I read the test. It also showed the rib cracking capabilities of pistol rounds even when they don't penetrate. Even a bruised diaphragm or broken collar bone can impede your enemy.

Inebriated

March 25, 2013, 07:29 PM

Then you go with a stronger cartridge....

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 07:44 PM

Then you go with a stronger cartridge....
Like?

Inebriated

March 25, 2013, 07:49 PM

Like a magnum.

Surely you aren't eluding to the notion that a PCC would be a better option?

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 08:04 PM

Like a magnum.

Surely you aren't eluding to the notion that a PCC would be a better option?
I'm suggesting it isn't much worse.

Your suggestion of an unnamed magnum has flaws: recoil, cost, barrel life, and the length of barrel needed to get optimum performance from the cartridge, whichever that may be. This equates to a heavier, possibly cumbersome gun. It's also assumed you'll be carrying even less magnum rounds than I termed irate rifle cartridges.

Well, yes and no. I can buy a reloading outfit for my .30-06 cheaper than I can buy a .357 caliber carbine.

And I can load a .30-06 down to 1600 fps or less. But I can't load a .357 up to 3000 fps.

But, Vern, you KNOW you can load a .300 WM down to .30-06, but you'll never load the .30-06 UP to .300 WM By this logic, you should own a .300 WM....er, well, a .338 or a .375 H&H etc, etc, etc.

Vern Humphrey

March 25, 2013, 08:12 PM

But, Vern, you KNOW you can load a .300 WM down to .30-06, but you'll never load the .30-06 UP to .300 WM By this logic, you should own a .300 WM....er, well, a .338 or a .375 H&H etc, etc, etc.
Are you proposing that we adopt Pistol Caliber Carbines equal in power to the 375 H&H?

If not, what is your point?

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 08:22 PM

...whether or not a person reloads is a factor for them when they decide which gun they ought to get for a particular use.

Does that makes sense to you?

Do you agree with that?

Absolutely. I think there are a number of guns that not make too much sense to buy if one doesn't hand load (which is probably a more accurate term than reload, am I reloading if its never fired brass?).

However, limits of a person are not the same as limits of a gun. To go back to my example people probably consider what range they realisitically can achieve hits at. That doesn't mean the gun is per se limited that way.

More to the point though, I think to call someone out that says this is my solution and accuse them of thinking the whole rest of the world is like them is reading too much into their statement. To further illustrate the point one could just as validly charge the non hand loader who states the pistol caliber is better for introducing new shooters of assuming everyone is like them.

Like most things the details matter. The specifics of one's intents, purpose and situations matter. It is totally valid to say a pistol caliber is a more valid alternative to X given that one doesn't hand load. To leave out that caveat is just as and arguably much more presumptious than to turn around and state that a tailored cartridge allows the same capability.

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 08:38 PM

Also, what if your enemy is wearing more than soft armor? I mean, you've thrown in a very good variable: What if they have soft armor?

What if they have "big boy" vests, or several that are layered? I've seen tests of .308 win against three bullet proof vests layered, simulating an actual hostage situation that had happened previously. The .308 failed.

That is absolutely neither here nor there in relation to your original question, what can a rifle caliber do that a pistol can't. There a level of armor that may rifle rounds can defeat which pistol rounds cannot. The fact that there is also a level or armoring that will stop any rifle round is really neither her nor there in answering your question and in way changes the answer.

I'll be frank, it is hard to answer a question if the person asking it keeps changing it.

Inebriated

March 25, 2013, 08:52 PM

I'm suggesting it isn't much worse.

Your suggestion of an unnamed magnum has flaws: recoil, cost, barrel life, and the length of barrel needed to get optimum performance from the cartridge, whichever that may be. This equates to a heavier, possibly cumbersome gun. It's also assumed you'll be carrying even less magnum rounds than I termed irate rifle cartridges.

And you're not sniping when you shoot an armored target in a hostage situation?

MCgunner

March 25, 2013, 08:58 PM

Are you proposing that we adopt Pistol Caliber Carbines equal in power to the 375 H&H?

If not, what is your point?

Just that if you don't have a .50 BMG, you don't have the mostest. You can always load the more powerful gun down. I bought a 7 mag when what I originally was thinkin' was .280. Figured, I can load the 7 down, but not the .280 up.

So, by your logic, buy a Barrett in .50. THEN, you have it all, you don't need anything else. And, you want long range? :D I mean, I shoot a .50 caliber CVA inline. I don't need that, could load the Barrett down to 1400 fps with a 385 grain bullet. Never mind that it's a 30 lb gun and ain't real quick to the shoulder or handy to carry afield, it will DO it ALL! :D It's the end all, you need nothing more than a .50 BMG chambered Barrett.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 09:05 PM

That's where the logic takes you. No option but to always take the most powerful, and thus most capable and most perfect, cartridge you can possibly get

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 09:21 PM

That is absolutely neither here nor there in relation to your original question, what can a rifle caliber do that a pistol can't. There a level of armor that may rifle rounds can defeat which pistol rounds cannot. The fact that there is also a level or armoring that will stop any rifle round is really neither her nor there in answering your question and in way changes the answer.

I'll be frank, it is hard to answer a question if the person asking it keeps changing it.
Didn't change it, just escalated the situation.

What's better when neither round can fully penetrate? You added body armor to the equation to prove a point (which is taken), but I rebutted with a new problem: chest hits are negative due to armor.

I bet both platforms will sit a bad guy on his butt though.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 09:22 PM

And you're not sniping when you shoot an armored target in a hostage situation?
So we are talking sniper rifles vs PCCs?

You guys are right: this may be getting out of hand.

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 09:23 PM

You can always load the more powerful gun down.

Well as a starting point that is not true, at least not really in the way in which you are implying. After a certain point when down loading cartridges you run into notable performance and in some instances even safety issues.

The rest of your post is just reductio ad absurdum at its best.

That's where the logic takes you. No option but to always take the most powerful, and thus most capable and most perfect, cartridge you can possibly get

Well, where logical fallacies take you anyways.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 09:27 PM

reductio ad absurdum at its best. There's a reason its a dead language.;)

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 09:29 PM

Didn't change it, just escalated the situation.

No you really did. You asked, what can a rifle do in combat that a pistol caliber can't. One, of a number of answers given, was it can defeat armor that pistol calibers can't. That is a real life capability. You then basically just stated the fact that there is also armor that the same rifle couldn't defeat? Pardon me for saying this but duh! Great, so what? That has no real relation to your initial question. The question didn't ask what the limits of a rifle were.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 09:38 PM

No you really did. You asked, what can a rifle do in combat that a pistol caliber can't. One, of a number of answers given, was it can defeat armor that pistol calibers can't. That is a real life capability. You then basically just stated the fact that there is also armor that the same rifle couldn't defeat? Pardon me for saying this but duh! Great, so what? That has no real relation to your initial question. The question didn't ask what the limits of a rifle were.

But a different rifle could, making the rifle that can't the wrong choice.

amidoingitright?

MCgunner

March 25, 2013, 09:47 PM

Well as a starting point that is not true, at least not really in the way in which you are implying. After a certain point when down loading cartridges you run into notable performance and in some instances even safety issues.

Ever hear of a filler? Solves safety issues. I use cornmeal in my cap and ball guns. I could load that 50 BMG with 70 grains of 777, add a corn meal filler to compress the load, and top it with a 385 grain Minie and it would match my CVA Wolf. Accuracy? Well, i don't know, but I doubt a 00 buck pellet on a .30-06 with a smidge of Bullseye or Unique is minute of squirrel accurate, either. :rolleyes: I do know a 105 gain SWC over 2.3 grains of Bullseye in .38 brass is in my Rossi 92.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 09:47 PM

No you really did. You asked, what can a rifle do in combat that a pistol caliber can't. One, of a number of answers given, was it can defeat armor that pistol calibers can't. That is a real life capability. You then basically just stated the fact that there is also armor that the same rifle couldn't defeat? Pardon me for saying this but duh! Great, so what? That has no real relation to your initial question. The question didn't ask what the limits of a rifle were.
It has a lot to do with it, I.e: brings the rifle down a peg. If its a real world situation where a bad guy is wearing armor capable of stopping pistols, then same guy can be wearing stuff to stop a rifle. I'll reiterate: the minimum capabilities of a rifle can be eclipsed by the maximum of a pistol cartridge. We've all stated it to one degree or another. I didn't even bring up armor, you did. So if a dude is wearing stuff that stops BOTH, the rifle caliber gun does nothing that PCC can't. There's your relation, relativity, reality, so forth and etcetera. You're telling me someone can stop a pistol round with armor, and its been done to a rifle as well. So, not to quote you too closely, but duh.

So, you haven't answered the initial question: what can the rifle do, that the PCC can't!

Edit to add: and for all our back and forth, over 80% polled STILL opine that a PCC will get THEIR job done to one degree or another.

Zoogster

March 25, 2013, 09:55 PM

They can do a number of things.
They are easier to shoot accurate close and medium range shots with minimal firearm experience.
They are quiter, with little muzzle climb, flash, or recoil.
They can share ammunition with a sidearm, and some share magazines.

I alwas find it funny how various rifle rounds designed for suppression can have so many followers, when what you are almost doing is creating a pistol caliber carbine. Just one that goes slightly further with a better BC, but also often is less effective with a subsonic spitzer bullet vs a pistol bullet.
A .300 blackout in its subsonic loading for example is essentially just recreating a pistol caliber carbine (although with the ability to also use more powerful rifle rounds can be more versatile)

The law limits two of the things pistol caliber carbines do best:
1.They utilize short barrels much better than most rifle cartridges, since they use rounds meant for short pistol barrels an 8-12" barrel carbine (SBR by law) is often better than a similar length rifle in practical use.
2.The second thing is they make the best use of suppressors, as many pistol rounds are already subsonic standard, or close enough that they can simply be made a little heavier and slower without altering the effectiveness of the round significantly. While rifle rounds depend on velocity for most of thier terminal performance, which they lack in subsonic loads.

Pistol caliber carbines would be more useful without the NFA.
But they still have thier place.

exdetsgt

March 25, 2013, 10:05 PM

I have a Rossi M92 lever action in 38/357. It's my favorite rifle. I've had several AR15's and you walk around in the boonies with one down here on the Mexican border neither the good guys nor the bad guys think you're just another hunter. But with a lever action, well, you're just another hunter.

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 10:17 PM

It has a lot to do with it, I.e: brings the rifle down a peg

How does bringing the rifle down a peg have anything to do with your question? Seriously. Maybe that is your new thing you want to do for some reason, but it is hardly a retort to the answer given.

If its a real world situation where a bad guy is wearing armor capable of stopping pistols, then same guy can be wearing stuff to stop a rifle.

Certainly no one ever said otherwise. But again that is not a retort to the fact that a rifle will defeat armor that a handgun wont. It doesn't mean in any way that defeating other types of armor is not a capability that rifles have over pistol cartridges.

I didn't even bring up armor, you did.

Yeah, to directly answer a question you asked. Armor was one of a number of answers given that you chose to focus on and

So if a dude is wearing stuff that stops BOTH, the rifle caliber gun does nothing that PCC can't.

Right, but do you not understand that this does not mean that it is untrue that there are types of armor that the rifle will defeat that the pistol wont and thus that is something they do that a pistol wont and that you asked not "is a rifle better in every single situation," but rather, what in combat can a rifle do that pistol calibers wont do. Again its two totally different discussions. You have jumped rails, apparently when you didn't like the answer. It is not true that the rifle has to be more effective in every scenario imaginable for it to have real world capabilities and advantages in some scenarios. I get your point that there are situations where either could be equally effective or equally ineffective. It is simply not the case that those situations and that fact means there are no situations where one does something the other can't or does it much better.

There's your relation, relativity, reality, so forth and etcetera (sic). You're telling me someone can stop a pistol round with armor, and its been done to a rifle as well. So, not to quote you too closely, but duh.

I'm telling you exactly what you asked, what is a capability that a rifle has that pistol caliber gun doesn't. It can defeat certain types of armor. Nothing you have said has refuted that it any way. It has merely been discussion of a a different and very tangentially related new point you've brought up.

In essence your logic is is the same as the following:

A: 308 AP round has no combat abilities that a pellet gun doesn't. What can a .308 round do that a pellet can't

Here's how the argument develops.

B: a 308 with AP bullets can do the following that a pellet cant: A, B, C, D, E, and F--it can defeat barriers that would easily stop a pellet. In fact a layer or two of carpet will stop a pellet but is no match for an AP 308 round.

Now A responds ignoring all other points besides the one about barriers.

A: Yeah but, ceramic plates can stop 308. Thus it is no more capable than pellet in any situation and can't do anything the pellet can't period because it is equally ineffective if one wears ceramic plates.

Do you see how that argument doesn't work and thus doesn't refute the answer I gave you?

Perhaps another example will help.

Example:

A: What can a 250cc motorcylce do in daily commuting that a 90 cc scooter can't?

B: Go 80 MPH on the free way.

A: But on that little 250cc would be hard pressed to do much more than 100-110 MPH and there are roads in the world where one can travel faster than 110 MPH.

Again great, what does that have to do with the initial question. How does A's response disprove or refute B's answer to his question? It doesn't.

So, you haven't answered the initial question: what can the rifle do, that the PCC can't!

Do you still think this?

If a rilfe can defeat a soft vest and a pistol caliber cannot, then yes I have. That is true whether neither or both can defeat a vest. My statement was not that a rifle can defeat every type of armor on earth while a pistol caliber cannot.

If you honestly cannot see the what is incorrect about your final assertion "So, you haven't answered the initial question: what can the rifle do, that the PCC can't!" and the contentions you have used in making it. I don't think I am capable of explaining it to you or that there is much point in discussing it further.

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 10:21 PM

I have a Rossi M92 lever action in 38/357. It's my favorite rifle. I've had several AR15's and you walk around in the boonies with one down here on the Mexican border neither the good guys nor the bad guys think you're just another hunter. But with a lever action, well, you're just another hunter.

Would that be the case if you had a 30/30 lever action or BLR in 308? If the AR was a 9x19 would it be any different than if it was 5.56 or 300 Blk, or .22LR? I ask these questions to make the point that what you are saying is not an argument that really hinges on pistol caliber versus rifle caliber but rather on style of weapons.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 10:34 PM

How does bringing the rifle down a peg have anything to do with your question? Seriously....
If you honestly cannot see the what is incorrect about your final assertion "So, you haven't answered the initial question: what can the rifle do, that the PCC can't!" and the contentions you have used in making it. I don't think I am capable of explaining it to you or that there is much point in discussing it further.
You're grasping. Other than repeating the obvious, that which has been done before your posts, you've not really swayed votes here. We know, for the love of Pete, about body armor. My point was; if your enemy stops rifle bullets too, what does it do that the PCC can't. You STILL haven't answered this!!!

I guess we can agree to disagree. Pellet rifles, body armor, scooters...by your logic I'd carry a 50 BMG, wear adamantium armor, and cruise a Ninja. I'm not changing your mind about possible effectiveness, or rather, the PCCs place on the field anymore than you are deterring me.

I do none of those things, btw. I'm afraid of motorcycles.

Inebriated

March 25, 2013, 10:38 PM

So we are talking sniper rifles vs PCCs?

You guys are right: this may be getting out of hand.

YOU brought up the situation, dude. I'm just telling you that there are certainly better options in that situation than the PCC, and to suggest otherwise is either pure or blind ignorance. You and Warp can keep swinging the conversation and circumstances back around into the PCC's favor all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that if there's a PCC that can do a job, there's a rifle that can do it better.

You're grasping.
He absolutely isn't.

Girodin

March 25, 2013, 10:44 PM

I alwas find it funny how various rifle rounds designed for suppression can have so many followers, when what you are almost doing is creating a pistol caliber carbine. Just one that goes slightly further with a better BC, but also often is less effective with a subsonic spitzer bullet vs a pistol bullet.
A .300 blackout in its subsonic loading for example is essentially just recreating a pistol caliber carbine (although with the ability to also use more powerful rifle rounds can be more versatile)

And that paranthetical is the reason a lot of people like them and a pretty notable added capability. Depending on use the added range may or may not be notable. Terminal ballistics of the subsonics has been addressed more than once in this thread. It is an argument that IMHO used to be a VERY big strike against rounds like the 300 BLK, and one that a lot of folks seemingly willfully ingnored. With the development of bullets designed to expand and perform at lower velocities it is an argument that is carrying less water these days. The last big advantage is that 30 cal match rifle bullets can produce precision that IME match pistol bullets cannot approach. Again depending on one's use this may more may not matter.

Now I would agree that if all you are going to do is shoot inside 100 yards or so, maximum accuracy is not needed, and you only ever want to shoot subsonic then getting a 300 BLK over a 9x19 may not be the best choice. However, there are a number of legit reasons and real world advantages to using a 300 BLk instead.

Pistol caliber carbines would be more useful without the NFA.

I totally agree. I think it is worth at least noting that no NFA would also change much of the discussion about rifles too. For example a suppressor notably would cut sound, blast, and muzzle rise that you mention in the beginning of your post. Of course it might still be the case that there would still be less on some pistols. At a certain point the difference is not notable enough and it stops mattering.

They are easier to shoot accurate close and medium range shots with minimal firearm experience.

I think that generally speaking you other points have merit. This one I'd be inclined to push back on a little more. I'm just not sure that it is per se true of all pistol rounds as compared to all rifle rounds (assuming other factors are equal). I would think that it would certainly be true if the rifle rounds in question are particularly powerful ones and thus produce a lot of recoil, flash and blast. For mild rounds I'm just not sure that your statement is really true. My experience has been that if I had someone my Noveske with an aimpoint on it they have a very easy time of hitting targets out to 100 yards or so. If I do the same with one of my the pistol guns that is wearing a RDS there is no perceivable difference. I take a lot of people who are new to guns shooting. I don't think my experience is per se universal but it does make me believe that the statement in question cannot be per se true either. I'm sure if I handed them a 300 win mag and told them to have at it, it would be very different than if I gave them a 9x19 carbine.

meanmrmustard

March 25, 2013, 10:46 PM

YOU brought up the situation, dude. I'm just telling you that there are certainly better options in that situation than the PCC, and to suggest otherwise is either pure or blind ignorance. You and Warp can keep swinging the conversation and circumstances back around into the PCC's favor all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that if there's a PCC that can do a job, there's a rifle that can do it better.

He absolutely isn't.
Never did I bring up sniping. I'm drawing a conclusion from your post. As for rifles performing better, I'm sure of that...to a degree. But, these facts have been rehashed, from at least Page 2.

By my definition, reiterating what has already been said and moved past in order to try and come to a conclusive point is grasping. Hell, I'm even doing it now. But I recognize it: no ones minds getting changed. You believe a rifle is better...better at what? This is where I draw my line, as I can fire faster, rue acquire targets faster, carry more ammo, am effective at combat range, and share ammo with a pistol by way of using a PCC. The rifle just ain't getting all that done in spades.

Ymmv.

Warp

March 25, 2013, 10:49 PM

82.69% say: Yes; It's the right tool for the right job.

Inebriated

March 25, 2013, 10:51 PM

Never did I bring up sniping. I'm drawing a conclusion from your post. As for rifles performing better, I'm sure of that...to a degree. But, these facts have been rehashed, from at least Page 2.

By my definition, reiterating what has already been said and moved past in order to try and come to a conclusive point is grasping.

Ymmv.

You brought up the .308 hostage situation. In what way is shooting a person with a .308 in a hostage situation NOT sniping?

taliv

March 25, 2013, 10:53 PM

ok, time to stick a fork in this one...

(fwiw, while totally off topic, "sniping" = firing from a concealed position)